C7, 


Z 


tiigy 


MA, 
ZY 


O, 
ee, 


“e. 









* DEC I9 1908 +# 

7; et pe 

we ty As 
<A Gi¢41, SERN 


Division (QQHO6 8 
Section .BAWEG 














WHAT IS MAN? 


OR 


CREATIONISM vs. EVOLUTIONISM 


BY“ 
JUDSON D. BURNS, M.D. 





ate 


NEW YORK 
COCHRANE PUBLISHING CO. 
1908 


Copyright, 1908, by 
JUDSON D. BURNS, M.D. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 
PRE MACI I Na es Twin. 8 oe Guan Lhe e We male a nicles orate Sit tamu RL wT 
APPERODUICTION ware aig es cate aire ad Aaa aed vie aleydialdie ial uti dias rere 
CHAPTER 
I. Aw Epirome or THE EvotuTionary SCHEME FROM 
MAOMERON: TO NLAN Shien Boa ee et Ui ee May a 


II. Tue ArcuMents Upon Wuicu Evo.utionists BASE 


THEIR THEORY—ANSWERS TO THE SAME......... 22 

TIT VOSTEOLOGY, IN MAN AND MONKEY. is sel ods ee 28 
IV. Tue Brains or MAN ann MonxKEyY COMPARED BY 

ALN ATOMIBTS. oop ed o5 die nics ete sis wh eee Ava hae Ae a 

Von MER VOLOGY AND PLEREDITY, ).Gu)s'c lsc. Doe sek dic un eae tOa 

VI. THe SuprReME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE.........+.-.- 143 

VIE Tae Antiovrry oF MAN—Evropes. 2. eu eee 184 


VIII. Tue Antiquity or MAN—Ecypt—ScIENTIFIC ORIGIN 
OF LANGUAGE — EcGypTiIAN LITERATURE — MAN’sS 
PRESENT) STATUCCH EGON 324%. 5 ule Haine el eae ak Or 


IX. THe Antiquity or MAN—CHINA—MAN’sS PRESENT 
STATUS. CONTINUED sie ae ck ed ss ia Kae eo daaes aeae 


X. CHALDEA—THE PLACE OF THE BEGINNING—THE GAR- 
DEN OF EpeEN LocATED—WHERE ADAM WAS CRE- 
ATED—THE Fioop A Locat CATACLYSM.......... 205 


XI. WHEN Man Was CreATED—For WHAT PuRPOSE— 
Man’s Present Status, CoNncLupep—MAn’s 
PROBABLE OBJECTIVE CONSIDERED.......eeeeeeee2+ 305 


ili 


DONA 
met ‘ 
Git 

aT 
taghalys 

NMA 





PREFACE 


I FULLY realize that I have undertaken a task of no 
mean significance when I undertake to refute the doc- 
trines advocated by such eminent men as Charles Darwin, 
Herbert Spencer, Prof. Thomas H. Huxley, and Dr. 
Ernst Haeckel; all of world-wide reputation, and made 
so by the advocacy of the doctrine I have engaged to 
refute. 

Whether or not I have succeeded in the refutation 
of the doctrine of evolution as enunciated by those emi- 
nent men, I leave to the judgment of those who may 
do me the honor to read my words. 

I trust that those who read this book will overlook the 
fact that its author is an obscure personage, and only 
consider the subject matter presented, passing judgment 
upon it on its merits. 

These words have been written after a study of the 
theory of evolution covering several years’ time, and 
with a thorough desire to arrive at a satisfactory con- 
clusion for myself. They were brought about by the 
following incident: 

Some years ago, while attending a medical convention 
in a certain city, one evening, I, with five others, “pur- 
veyors of pills,” went out to a restaurant for supper. 
While at table, the conversation turned to church mat- 
ters, and religion in general, and from this to Darwinism. 
One of the company said: “I am a member of and a 
Deacon in the First Baptist Church of City ot 
go to church pretty regularly, and pay my money to the 
church, but I don’t believe a word I hear preached; I 
don’t believe in the doctrine preached in any of the 
churches to-day. I am an evolutionist, and I think there 
is no more inspiration in the writings of the Bible than 

I 





2 PREFACE 


there is the writings of Darwin; I think the Mosaic ac- 
count of the creation is nothing but fiction, not a word 
of truth in it.” 

This declaration, made so broadly and bluntly, shocked 
my sensibilities not a little. It made a deep impression 
on my mind. I thought it over again and again, and 
determined to investigate for myself, and find out the 
truth of the matter, if I could. Accordingly, I procured 
the works of Darwin, Spencer, Huxley and Haeckel on 
evolution and kindred subjects, besides the best works 
on biology, anthropology, ethnology, the antiquity of 
man, and geology. Then, with a good encyclopedia to 
refer to, I began the study of the subject, and have can- 
vassed it to the best of my ability ; and now I make known 
the result of such investigation. 

I trust the contribution may be received in the spirit 
in which it is given, overlooking the many imperfections 
of an inexperienced author. 

Jupson D. Burns, M.D. 


Grundy Center, Iowa, 1908. 


INTRODUCTION 


THEORIES are formulated, hypothecations set up, in at- 
tempts to find bases from which to explain different phe- 
nomena. Many a theory has come to be accepted, in the 
past, that has later been found to be false; and such a 
theory has often stood in the way of recognition of the 
truth. It has biased the mind and led to false interpreta- 
tion of the facts. In this way wrong impressions, of the 
most momentous character, gain the ascendency. This 
is preéminently the case with Darwin’s theory of the 
evolution of the species. 

In all the affairs of men, especially in the field of 
mechanical physics, theories are tested in every conceiv- 
able manner to prove or disprove them; but here is a 
theory advanced which it is not even pretended has been 
tested in any branch of the great field of nature; and it 
is accepted by many and declared to be a scientific state- 
ment of the origin of all the species of organic crea- 
tures. Now, it is not only without proof, but it is so 
contrary to the facts, that every law of nature, in the 
field of reproduction, is arrayed against it. Nevertheless, 
in the face of all nature to the contrary, this untested 
theory is declared to be a scientific truth. 

While it is proposed in the following pages to combat 
and refute, on scientific grounds, the Darwinian theory 
of evolution, not making use of the written word of the 
Bible in proof of our position, yet it is unquestionable that 
ample proof of the fallacy of the Darwinian theory is 
contained in the Bible itself. Reference is made to that 
authority at times because science confirms its teachings, 
and is in accord with our findings. 

When we come to the full answer to the question, 
“What is Man?” we are forced to go to the Bible for 

3 


4 INTRODUCTION 


our answer. Nowhere else in all the literature of the 
world is an adequate answer given. Suppose we had 
never heard of the Bible, and knew nothing of its teach- 
ings, what would be our condition to-day? Probably we 
would be entertaining the same ideas that our progenitors 
did when they sailed from Jutland, worshipers of the 
god Woden, or possibly worse. Could we then answer 
the question? 

A great deal of trouble seems to have arisen from a 
want of a proper understanding of the meaning of the 
word “evolution.” A writer on metaphysics, in dealing 
with evolution, says: ‘Evolution in the scientific sense, 
is neither a controlling law nor a producing cause, but 
merely a description of the phenomenal order; it is a 
statement of method and is silent about causation. 

“Whenever a doctrine of evolution transcends the field 
of phenomenal description, and claims to give a theory 
of the productive causes, it then becomes metaphysics and 
must be handed over to philosophical criticism for adjudi- 
cation. We may have entire unanimity concerning evo- 
lution in the scientific sense along with complete dis- 
harmony in its metaphysical interpretation.” (Brown.) 

In Mr. Darwin’s discussion of evolution he has con- 
founded the duties of evolution proper with his own 
peculiar doctrine as to the causes of the evolution; and 
so he has become a metaphysician as to the production 
of the species. Hence we see the term evolution used 
in one sense on this page, and on another it is used in 
another sense. 

In some places he holds that the cause of new phe- 
nomena in the species is the extreme tendency in nature 
to change; that changes are constantly going on, and 
these changes bringing out new forms of life by evolu- 
tion. In other places he holds that the cause of the 
changes, and the production of new forms of life, is due 
to a very peculiar something, which he denominates 
“selection.” In still other places, and that most com- 
monly, he holds that evolution is the cause of the new 
forms of life instead of being a description of the phe- 
nomenal order of the development of the new forms of 


life. 


INTRODUCTION 5 


It is this mixing and conglomeration of causes that he 
makes use of in his “Evolution of the Species,” that has 
served to cover up and mystify his doctrine. This mys- 
tification, in turn, has given the doctrine its strength, and 
is the only reason for its acceptance by many. He is 
a metaphysician on one page, and a naturalist, writing 
in the spirit of a novelist, on the next page—making use 
of the cause that is best suited to the necessities of the 
case in hand. This practice, coupled with fictitious, pure- 
ly imaginary interpolations, amplified with specious argu- 
ments, which are used with great adroitness, seemingly 
has served to mystify the whole subject, as well as to 
render the argument plausible to the unwary or non- 
critical reader. The fictitious effect thus reached is set 
over against the theory, as if it were real; with the result, 
it is ventured, that few comprehend fully his doctrinal 
theory, because of the metaphysical entanglements, and 
fictitious interpolations, without which his work is barren. 

As a matter of truth, there is not a single essential, 
biological fact there adduced to substantiate his theory 
of “The Evolution of the Species.” It is surprising, be- 
yond measure, to find this to be actually the case, in all 
his writings, though they glow with brilliancy of thought. 

We conceive it beyond question, in this material world, 
that every effect must have an adequate cause; that 
nothing whatever comes by chance; and that like causes, 
under like circumstances, produce like effects; no dif- 
ference how remote the time, nor how widely separated 
the instances of the causes, the action or effect must be 
the same. 


Pa, 
thas 
Ma 


Vain 
ioe HY 
™ ek 


; 


— 


Se eS 
eee ss a Z ois 
as FOS Se as Se = eS: S = wa 
we ag rs ‘ yo = = = . = 

Sw. EE gE nie E pore 
asp - ~ = 2S 
ae = as Set ae 
—— = = os SS ae 
= Seas aS = 


Hoe Ah 
Mie ee ie if ‘AY 


\) 
/ 
a 
tM 


Hy it 
wif iN iN any 
ae ah $4 


} 
, 
Dh ap | 


ORY, 
i A 
t 


ida 
tliat 
Dn) 


it 
( 
a 
; 


i i; 


Hi un idl 
J ” ) 4 

My ait tat 1, 
RUAN a 
‘ { 


i 


") 


mi 


i 


( rT 

el AAG 
Poe re 
ats hoe 
Vee tas! 


hy tain { 
Ltt rae 
ie th Ht) 1 
y i Mh Yh ‘ 
ra 





WHAT IS MAN? 


CHAPTER I 


AN EPITOME OF THE EVOLUTIONARY SCHEME FROM 
MONERON TO MAN 


“WHAT a piece of work is Man!” cries Hamlet. “How 
noble in reason; how infinite in faculty; in form and 
moving, how express and admirable; in action how like 
an angel; in apprehension how like a god; the beauty of 
the world; the paragon of animals.”’ 

From a biological point of view, Man, the genus Homo, 
is an animal. A biped, bimanous, placental mammal; a 
vertebrate of the highest order, and possessing qualities 
of mind superior to that of any other in the animal 
kingdom; the only form of animal life using articulate 
language to communicate with his fellows. His habitat 
is the earth, wherever animal life is found and can be sus- 
tained. | 

But it is not simply Man’s classification in the animal 
kingdom that interests us so much at this time, but rather 
to inquire as to his origin, his present status, and his 
probable objective. 

While, in this inquiry, possibly little new matter will 
be presented, endeavor will be made to look at the sub- 
ject from a different standpoint from that of any other 
modern presentation of the subject. 

Historically, Job was the first man to ask the question 
which has been taken for the “text” for what is to follow 
on the subject, a little more than fifteen hundred years 
B.C. His language was, “What is Man that Thou should- 
est magnify him, and that Thou shouldest set Thine heart 

7 


8 WHAT IS MAN? 


\ 


upon him, and that Thou shouldest visit him every morn- 
ing, and try him every moment?” ‘The substance of this 
question, at least, has been reverberating down the ages. 
Very probably the same question has been asked thou- 
sands of times by inquiring minds. 

The Psalmist asked the great question in this form: 
“What is Man, that Thou art mindful of him, or the son 
of Man that Thou visitest him?” 

To the writer’s mind, the answer to this question de- 
pends entirely on the origin of Man. In studying this 
question, therefore, it becomes very necessary and prac- 
tical to review the subject of Man’s origin, inasmuch as 
there is a controversy on that pivotal point. It is the 
intention to present, in the following pages, all the facts 
already known on the subject, so far as the writer is ac- 
quainted with them. A different interpretation, however, 
will be put upon those facts from that of others who 
have written along these lines and an endeavor will be 
made to eliminate all fiction from the subject. 

There is but one place, to the writer’s knowledge, 
where we can go for any historical light on the subject, 
viz., the book of Genesis. But this authority has been 
called in question, along down the ages, very frequently, 
both as to the authorship and the subject matter. Noth- 
ing, however, was offered to take the place of the Bib- 
lical history of Man, that would bear scrutiny or stand 
anything of a test, at any time. At length, however, 
Charles Darwin, an English naturalist of the highest emi- 
nence, formulated and promulgated a connected chain of 
ideas; a theory as to the origin, not only of Man, but 
of the entire animal world, differing entirely from the 
Biblical history, and thereby introducing an entirely new 
aspect of animate nature, and which, it is supposed, he 
thought gave a scientific answer to the question, “What 
is Man?’”’ So that there are, at least, two answers to 
the question at the present time, which in effect, as well 
as in the modus operandi, differ so widely as to be an- 
tagonistic and irreconcilable. That is to say: if either 
one be true, the other cannot be true. Originally, it was 
only for the purpose of satisfying myself on the question 
that I studied the subject. 


FROM MONERON TO MAN 


There are many people, we suppose, who think it does 
not matter which of the two, if either or neither of the 
answers is the correct one. Maybe it does not; maybe 
that Man’s status would not be changed, whichever horn 
of the dilemma you hang your faith upon. But it seems 
to me that it makes a very great difference, judging 
from the effects which are seen, as well as from our own 
reason in the matter. 

The following statements, it is thought, are logical 
conclusions: If the Biblical account of Man’s origin 
be true, his status is fixed, in this world, as a separate 
creation; a creation that is no relative to any other genus 
in the animal kingdom; a creation for a purpose; and 
that his objective is provided for and determined in 
accordance with laws laid down by the Creator. If, 
on the contrary, the scheme laid down by Mr. Darwin, 
commonly known as the evolutionary theory of the origin 
of Man, be true, Man is an aimless accident in nature; 
in that, any break in the long evolutionary chain, which 
might readily have occurred, would have cut Man off 
entirely; or any imperfections in the transitions, which 
are made necessary by the theory, would have altered 
the effect, by changing the sequence from what it would 
have been had there been no imperfections in the evolu- 
tionary transitions. Man would, therefore, have a non- 
descript status, without an objective and without a des- 
tiny, save annihilation, like all his predecessors; it being 
that he is an offspring from animal life; a relative; one 
of the family of animal life, all having sprung from a 
common fatherhood; and why should he have a differ- 
ent destiny from that of the rest of the family? 

At the time that Job and again when David asked the 
question, there was but one answer to the inquiry as to 
the origin of Man; Darwinism had not then been evolved. 
If they were constrained to ponder the question in their 
time, how much more of an incentive have we, in this 
age, to study it? Apparently this question is beclouded 
to-day. Perhaps it might be said that it is more of an 
enigma to-day than it ever was in the past, because of 
the promulgation of this unique doctrine, and the ac- 
ceptance of it by great numbers, with and without under- 


10 WHAT IS MAN? 


standing, to an extent that the movement has swept over 
this country and Europe like a prairie fire, and has in- 
fluenced more or less the entire rising generation. This 
doctrine is taught largely in all high schools, colleges 
and universities. The theory being so startling, it is 
deemed worthy of consideration, whether true or not. 
Then again, the college professor who is not up to the 
times, in teaching the latest in everything, is considered 
a back number and is liable to have his head cut off, 
metaphorically speaking; and so he has to teach all that: 
comes from the mill of so-called scientific thought, 
whether vagaries or not. The subject of biology being 
in the curriculum, the student is obliged to give it his 
attention, and accept the teaching, at least tentatively. 

It is not common for the student, studying the theory 
of evolution, to put before himself, clearly and frankly, 
the question whether or not this theory is a scientific 
explanation of the existing order of things. To the 
student, as he looks at nature, the infinite number of 
details is sufficient to claim his entire attention. ‘These 
details occupy his mind so constantly that he rarely looks 
above or beyond them. The superficial sufficiency of 
the evolution doctrine seems to meet and explain the 
details to him. As he thus studies nature, naturally 
enough the doctrine assumes greater and greater promi- 
nence, until it becomes a mistaken verity. It is a fasci- 
nating study, and in his eagerness to grasp the tangible 
within his reach, the student forgets the fundamental 
principles and problems, so that his study of the subject 
is only superficial. As a result, many have accepted 
the doctrine as the whole truth; some for one reason, 
some for other reasons; among which are: First, 
misunderstanding or lack of understanding; second, be- 
cause, if this doctrine be true, Man is relieved of all 
responsibility ; third, because it offers a good excuse for 
religious skepticism, and holds up before him the ever 
present life, as being all in all; fourth, because it is 
something new, a fad of the crimp. 

It is very easy and catchy as well, to say that the 
simpler forms always precede the more complex forms, 
without stopping to ask: Do the simpler forms always, 


FROM MONERON TO MAN II 


or even ever, give rise to the more complex, and if so, 
how? But is it logical? 

In the judgment of the writer, no single affirmation 
has been more prolific of skepticism, has done more to 
unsettle the faith in Christianity since the Christian era 
began, than the doctrine of evolution as enunciated by 
Charles Darwin. The reasoning forces itself on every 
candid mind: Can there be such a thing as sin in ani- 
mal life? Have animals souls to be saved? Is it pos- 
sible that animals have a Redeemer? It is plain that, 
if one has, all have. The answer comes at once: If 
Man has no future life, any more than any other form 
of animal life, what is the use of bothering about it? 
It is all a delusion. Thus the foundation of civilization 
is swept away at one fell blow. 

It may not be that we shall satisfy anybody else on 
this question, even though we may know the exact truth; 
and notwithstanding it has been demonstrated to be the 
truth at the birth of every representative, of every form 
of animal life, since the creation; but I have satisfied 
myself on the question, and I feel it a duty as well as a 
privilege, to “let my light shine” on all questions of this 
kind; the reason of each individual is appealed to, and 
accordingly each individual must decide for himself, be- 
fore he can logically or reasonably formulate a belief, 
for or against. 

Let us then first study the evolutionary theory of the 
origin of Man. Even before Mr. Darwin wrote, there 
were several starts made, by naturalists, to get away 
from the creation theory and the creation story. At 
first, writers were moderate and somewhat chaotic in 
their opinions. Saint Hilaire accounted for the differ- 
‘ent animals by saying that what constituted what are 
now called species, were degenerations from the same 
type—thus suggesting evolution by degeneration; but 
that theory would not fit at all in the synthetic evolu- 
tionary scheme. 

Lamarck at first believed that “The use and disuse of 
organs according to necessity was sufficient, as a prin- 
ciple, to account for the development of new organs, 
and the lapse of others.” Later, in 1801, he was the 


12 WHAT, IS MAN? 


first to dispute the separate creations, as well as the im- 
mutability of the species. 

Time is one of the necessary elements in the scheme 
of evolution, and, therefore, there being no possible ob- 
jection, the advocates of the theory appropriated all 
they wanted; varying in their estimates greatly, until 
the latest school decides on a round one hundred million 
years as the time necessary in which to build the ani- 
mal world by evolution. 

‘Sir Archibald Geikie says: “Of the first appearance 
of organic life upon our planet we know nothing. 
Whether plants or animals came first, and in what forms 
they came, are questions to which as yet no satisfactory 
answer can be given. But it is in the highest degree 
improbable that any trace of the earliest beginnings of 
life will ever be found.” 

It is gleaned from the writings of evolutionists that 
they think animal life and the animal world, at least in 
its beginning, came first. Starting then, away back there 
one hundred million years ago, some time perhaps in 
what is called the Laurentian period, at a time when 
this earth was a barren waste, not a leaf nor a blade 
of grass appearing, and before the rocks of that period 
had even begun to form, life somehow, somewhere, some 
way or other began; and was made manifest in the one- 
celled animalcula called the moneron. Whether the whole 
family of the monera were in this, some way brought 
into being at once, or whether there was but a single 
representative at first, they do not tell us. It is to be 
presumed, however, that the whole family were spon- 
taneously called into being at one and the same time, in- 
asmuch as no progress, along the evolutionary lines so 
far laid down, could be made with but a single repre- 
sentative of the species, as we shall see further along. 

Numerous theories have been advanced as to how 
life started; as to how this little cell came to have the 
life-element in it, and it was then the representative 
of all the animal life, and the progenitor of all animal 
life in the succeeding ages, up to this time. I will leave 
this subject, at this time, for another place; sufficient 


FROM MONERON TO MAN 13 


now to say that, by some means, it is held, the moneron 
is born. 

Think what had happened! Something entirely new 
had mysteriously come into the world. An entirely new 
element had come into existence, perhaps clandestinely, 
on this, so far, barren sphere. Life! What an epoch! 
Think of it! The shuttle had been thrown for the first 
time that was eventually to weave the great fabric of 
animal life on this earth, and continue it forever. 

From the Darwinian standpoint, not a particle of in- 
telligence was manifest on this earth, save only what 
this new element brought with it; and whither it came 
or whither it goeth, no man can tell. Nevertheless, life 
had started on its destiny, in this miniature cell, without 
architect to make plans, or an intelligent hand to guide 
the way. Chaos reigned supreme. Looking backward, 
we can just begin to comprehend the great possibilities 
stored up in this miniature, single life-cell, which is des- 
tined, or predestined, without architect or guide; with- 
out the shadow of a brain-cell, and therefore absolutely 
without any intelligence whatsoever, to build the animal 
world; being charged with the great, the mighty respon- 
sibility of fathering all forms of life on this earth, of 
whatsoever shape or form, be it beast, bird, fish, or 
reptile. Reader, do you realize, can you realize or even 
imagine, upon what a slender thread hangs our being? 

Is Sir Archibald Geikie right when he says: “Of the 
first appearance of organic life upon this planet we 
know nothing. It is in the highest degree improbable 
that any trace of the beginnings of life will ever be 
found”? If he is right, from whence comes the infor- 
mation that life, on this earth, began in the monera? Is 
it not purely assumption, made necessary by the scheme 
of evolution? It seems very reasonable and probable 
that Sir Archibald Geikie is exactly right; but, such is 
their theory, and that is what we are considering. 

This globule of protoplasmic matter called the mone- 
ron, for the first thousands of years, a very long but 
indefinite time, had no nucleus, and was therefore in- 
capable of budding or segregation, consequently could 
not grow or change its form; neither could it propa- 


14 WHAT. IS MAN? 


gate new cells; and so it becomes a great mystery how 
life was perpetuated in this globule, during all these 
ages. But eventually, another stage of development suc- 
ceeded; a nucleus was implanted in the life-cell, which 
gave it new possibilities. The single cell could now 
subdivide itself and thus become “many cells.” A brand 
new creation? Rather a brand new manifestation of 
life, an advancement. This new manifestation of life 
was brought about by a law, as Darwin supposed, and 
which he at first stated in these words: “The law of 
selection by natural adaptation,’ but which he later 
changed to read, “Natural selection.” At a still later 
date he adopted Herbert Spencer’s wording of this sup- 
posed natural law: “The survival of the fittest.” And 
on this dictum, ignoring all other natural laws, he builds 
the whole scheme of “The Evolution of the Species.” 
Think of it for one moment! All the possibilities of 
the future development of animal life to be hung on 
the perfect working of this one antiethical law, the 
“Natural selection” of Darwin, ‘‘The survival of the fit- 
test” of Spencer, or “The struggle for life” of Huxley; 
which they say are one and the same thing. Can any- 
body guess how the world struggled along for at least 
nearly six thousand years without those laws? Before 
they promulgated their antiethical law, there was in opera- 
tion an ethical law in nature, that can be traced back as 
far as the creation, and is of far greater consequence, it 
would seem, than this other law (?), even though much 
less has been said about it. The formula is very simple 
and easy to understand: “The struggle for the life of 
others.” A beautiful conception and most appropriate 
wording for a very potent law of nature. This is Mr. 
Henry Drummond’s contribution on the subject, and 
with it, Darwinian evolution is completely routed from 
the field. Of course Mr. Drummond makes the attempt 
to erect his own scheme on the ruins of Darwinism, but 
we shall advert to that later on. 

“The struggle for life” represents egoism; “The strug- 
gle for the life of others” represents in its fullness, altru- 
ism. And so, we have these two words representing two 
principles claimed to be in nature by different schools of 


FROM MONERON TO MAN Is 


evolution. They are perfect antagonisms; perfect an- 
titheses, expressing two opposite characteristics in the 
animal, as well as in human life. The one looking after 
self to the exclusion of every other creature; the other 
sacrificing self for other creatures. They have been 
called characteristics; neither can be dignified into a 
law of nature, because neither all animals nor all human 
beings observe either of them; and we know that every 
one cannot observe both of these principles at the same 
time; or, in other words, no one can have two opposite 
characteristics, as this involves a contradiction. But, 
reader, which of these two characteristics forms the 
greater factor in the building of the animal world? In 
the brute, both are instinctive, if at all, in different per- 
sonalities; in the human being, either characteristic can 
be acquired. Darwinism builds the world with egoism 
alone. Why entirely ignore “The struggle for the life 
of others”? Taking no account of the love, the patience, 
the tender care and the self-sacrifice, the promptings of 
instinctive duty, that even the brute shows so markedly 
to its offspring, he formulates his scheme with egoism 
alone. Mr. Drummond very pertinently remarks: “With- 
out the struggles for the life of others, obviously there 
would have been no others. Egoism would soon kill 
itself off and then there would have been no evolution.” 
Egoism may propagate the species, but we must have 
altruism to preserve and rear them. Now I apprehend 
the truth to be, that both these two characteristics (they 
cannot be called laws) have been working side by side 
ever since the creation; without the latter perpetuation 
would be an impossibility. 

But to the story. It is said that in time these “many- 
- celled’ animalculz developed into “hollow-spheres,” and 
so, in the Cambrian period, came the amceba; the first 
to have a primary stomach. This new growth has the 
quality of motion, in a limited degree it is true, but still 
it has the new quality, and is an advance over its prede- 
cessor. 

In the Silurian period came the flat worm, and then the 
cord worm, consisting of an aggregation of cells. These 
animalculz subsist by burrowing in the slimy protoplas- 


16 WHAT, IS MAN? 


mic matter at the bottom of the sea. It is estimated and © 
claimed that it took fifty million four hundred thousand 
years to complete this period of advancement, by evolu- 
tion. 

In the Devonian period the lowest order of fishes de- 
veloped: the Balanoglossus, having a head like an acorn, 
and a broad, flat tongue, always extruded, and a long 
tail. 

About this time the vegetable world had made a start; 
the fern alone decorated this earth. It is also said that, 
during all these ages, these lower orders of animalculz 
kept multiplying, multiplying, MULTIPLYING in num- 
bers, as there were none of the higher forms of life, 
as yet, to prey upon them, and so, life developed luxuri- 
antly, and “took on” a new form: “skulless vertebrates,” 
as represented by the Amphioxis, a very low order of 
fishes, with a tail on both ends, was the next in the Cam- 
brian period. 

Now, reader, right here is where the wonder of the 
world was performed. ‘That the law (?) of “selection” 
should so influence procreation that it should induce the 
invertebrate, a simple little aggregation of organic mat- 
ter, without a bone in its body, to bring forth, from its 
primordial cell, its spawn, if you please, a vertebrate—a 
fish with a back-bone and a spinal cord with all the ner- 
vous accompaniments, is an exhibition that stands out 
as the most unique freak that nature had fathered (if it 
were true); it stands among the greatest of imaginary 
achievements in the world’s history. Especially is this 
true since, according to their own tell, there had been 
no “struggle for life.” This law (?) had cut no figure 
whatever, so far, because there were no higher forms 
of life to prey upon those primary forms of life, and 
they could not put up much of a struggle between them- 
selves. Apparently all lived together in peace and har- 
mony, thus far. The law (?) of “the survival of the 
fittest’? had not, as yet, had anything to do with the evo- 
lutionary process. It would be appropriate then to ask, 
What, from a Darwinian standpoint, has furnished the 
impetus for the change, the advancement, in the evolu- 
tionary process, so far? 


FROM MONERON TO MAN 17 


Then came the “lamprey” or “mud-fish,” the first of 
the fishes to have eyes, in the Permian age. How came 
they to have eyes? Did “selection” divine that they 
needed eyes, and put them there? This stage of develop- 
ee took about thirty-two million years to complete it- 
self. 

Now came the “gilled salamanders,” and then the 
“tailed salamanders,” as represented by the Amblystoma; 
the first of the Proreptilia, in the Trias period. In the 
Jura period came the “mammal reptiles,” of which the 
Iquana is the type. Then the “primary mammals,” of 
which the opossum is the most perfect specimen, came 
in the “Chalk period.” Here is another space of four- 
teen million eight hundred thousand years; and by this 
time the pine forests had sprung up and covered the. 
earth. 

In the Eocene, Miocene and Pliocene ages, the mar- 
supials, of which the stenops is the first, came forth. 
Then the “semi-apes’; the lemur, as represented by the 
Semnopythecus. Now, as the leafed forests grew to 
luxuriance, the “tailed apes” developed. Soon the “nar- 
row-nosed apes” made their appearance, of which the 
gorilla is the celebrated representative. Here again we 
have the lapse of some five hundred thousand years. 
And then, in the Glacial period, came the “man-like 
apes,’ of Asia and Africa, the gibbon. And lastly the 
orang-utan, and the chimpanzee, Man’s immediate prede- 
cessors. 

Granting all that has preceded, for argument’s sake, 
many or all the steps already taken presenting miracu- 
lous’ difficulties, there is now, seemingly, an impassable 
gulf between Man and his nearest approach in the ani- 
mal kingdom. This has ever been a hard chasm to 
bridge. They say there is a missing link here, a some- 
thing that represents a creature that stands half way 
between Man and monkey. The missing link has been 
diligently hunted for, but it cannot be found. How- 
ever, not in the least dismayed, they proceed, and out 
of the ‘“‘corn-stalk fiddle’ is to be made the “parlor- 
grand” piano, simply by the inherent, latent power stored 
up in the fat corn-stalk. All this is done without an 


18 WHAT IS MAN? 


impetus, unless it be the vagary of selection self-ad- 
ministered, and absolutely without an architect. Man 
is to be projected from the orang-utan or the chim- 
panzee, which is not yet fully decided. How is the 
ape, the automaton, to be transformed into the reason- 
ing Man, with a conscience as his monitor? The vault 
of the skull is to be enlarged so as to contain 48 to 50 
ounces of brain matter, instead of 18 to 20 ounces; and 
in that additional brain substance is to be located an 
endowed center for each of the different faculties of 
Man, while all the varied emotions possible to Man are 
to be located and provided for. 

But the brain capacity, on which depends the intelli- 
gence of Man, with all the refinements that the mind of 
Man is capable of—God’s gift to Man—is not the only 
distinguishing mark that differentiates Man from the 
orang-utan or the chimpanzee. There are a multitude 
of very essential anatomical differences to be reconciled. 
The chimpanzee must shorten his arms; must readjust 
the muscles of the thumb; must get rid of an additional 
vertebra, and an additional pair of ribs; he must cut 
off his canine teeth and close up the gap in the jaw 
accordingly. He must readjust and transfer to the hinder 
limb and foot, the muscle which in Man terminates in 
a single tendon, and concentrates its action on the great 
toe, and which terminates in the ape in three tendons, 
which are attached to and flex the three middle toes of 
his front foot, and is entirely missing in the hinder 
limb where it must be after the transformation of mon- 
key into Man. The whole poise of his body must be 
changed, the hair on the body is to be done away with; 
besides a multitude of other differences that must be 
adjusted before he becomes a Man. 

Is it a probability, much less a possibility, that this 
unlocated, unknown power, whatever it may be called, 
selection or whatnot, self-administered, could effect the 
necessary changes? 

Sir Charles Bell, a world-famous anatomist, of Eng- 
land, says: “Man is the only animal that smiles; and 
this expression is given by a special set of muscles; 
and I have demonstrated those muscles in Man’s 


FROM MONERON TO MAN 19 


face.” Now, for a moment, contemplate the enormous 
stretch of the imagination that can ascribe to selection, 
self-administered, or this antiethical law (?), “the strug- 
gle for life,’ which if it be a law at all is not a cosmic 
law, but a law that looks wholly to the preservation and 
perpetuation of life and of self, an intelligence that could 
originate and call into being, locate and functionate a set 
of muscles in the anatomy of the progeny-to-be of the 
ape; and which were to give a certain expression to Man’s 
face when he should laugh. Bear in mind that all this 
is to be done while the future Man is in its primordial 
form, in the body of the mother orang-utan. Does any 
sane man, away down in his heart, believe that this law, 
or any law of nature, can produce the necessary changes 
and bridge the chasm? It would seem that any man 
who could believe that, could as easily believe that he 
can lift himself over the moon by taking hold of his 
own boot-straps. 

Nevertheless, to continue our story, in the Post-Glacial 
period, in some way, the “ape-like’’ man is produced. 
This specimen is said to be the native Australian, and 
the progenitor of the bushman. He gradually develops 
into the “speaking man.’ Then, after a lapse of some 
thousands of years, in the Recent period (mark that), 
in some way or other, the Civili, the highest type of the 
genus Homo, came upon the scene. 

It will be noticed that, for the first time, there is a 
change, not of genus, but merely a change of some of 
the characteristics of the genus; he is still of the genus 
Homo; the “black-skinned,” “woolly-haired” man has 
brought forth, or has been changed into the “white- 
_ skinned,” “straight-haired” man. 

A brief sketch has now been given of the course of 
evolution, as claimed by its advocates. Although a mere 
skeleton synopsis, merely a pointing out of some of the 
milestones along the way, to punctuate the process of 
Darwinism et al., yet enough to enable the reader to fol- 
low the way. How that, to sum it up in one sentence, 
a certain quality developing in a few favored representa- 
tives of each species or gradation of development, acting 
in harmony and in conjunction with a so-called law, 


20 WHAT IS MAN? 


which, by the way, Mr. Darwin laid down, took on or 
acquired the ability to change their type, their genus; 
took on actually the power of transmutation; were en- 
abled to change their beings, their natures, and their 
environment. And that they actually did bid farewell 
to all their old friends and acquaintances—for I doubt 
not that there are friendships in animal life as well as 
with men—and stepped boldly out into a new and un- 
tried realm of development, at éach successive step, until 
Man was reached. (How came the evolution to stop 
there ?) 

From the foregoing it will be seen that, not only is 
Man an accident, but all organic life, the entire ani- 
mal world, has been developed by accident. That beau- 
tiful and scientifically constructed organ, the eye, came 
by chance, i.e., from the evolution standpoint. The 
wonderful perfection of mechanism and adaptability of 
the human hand were all brought about without archi- 
tectural intelligence to supervise, or an executive power 
to enforce, but came simply by chance. The circulatory 
system, the lungs, the complex brain and nervous sys- 
tems, with all their special endowments of functional 
activities, were all the result of blind growth, under the 
direction of that self-administered law “selection,” after 
life had happened to start up “spontaneously.” In short, 
all the complex organisms, as they exist to-day, came 
into being by chance, primarily. All resulted from noth- 
ing, acting on nothing; this is the legitimate, logical con- 
clusion from their hypothesis. 

Scientifically, not another word needs to be written to 
disprove the evolution theory; and to prove that the pro- 
duction of the species by the theory set up is not only a 
delusion, but an impossibility; because there is no ade- 
quate cause set up. An adequate cause, acting to pro- 
duce the organism in the animal body, must have at least 
three qualifications, viz.: First, it must have an intelli- 
gence to devise a plan. This contemplates a perfect 
knowledge of all the circumstances and requirements of 
the case. Second, a supreme executive power to enforce 
the execution of the plan. This contemplates a harmoni- 
ous working along the lines of law, to the extent that 


FROM MONERON TO MAN an 


no other power can annul the decree. Third, a will to 
act; than which nothing in the Universe is more potent. 
Now, evolution has no such qualifications, since science 
has declared that, “Evolution is neither a controlling law 
nor a producing cause, but merely a description of the 
phenomenal order.” Selection, per se, has no qualifica- 
tions at all for such duties as are here laid upon it. 
Transmutation, in biology, is a myth of no standing 
whatever. 

Science does not support, for one moment, the propo- 
sition that anything in this material world came by 
chance; but all things must have an adequate cause for 
their being., 

But, in spite of all science, a condition confronts us 
with which we are forced to deal. The animal world is 
here. How did it come? This is a reality. How can 
we account for it? Mr. Darwin, e¢ al., say it may have 
come about by the chance of evolution, and for want of 
a satisfying answer they have many followers. 


CHARTER dT 


THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS BASE THEIR 
THEORY—ANSWERS TO THE SAME 


From a careful study of the question it is concluded 
that the arguments upon which Evolutionists base their 
theory, and the arguments to sustain it, may be summed 
up in the following propositions, viz. : 

First. Starting in on the proposition that the simpler 
forms always precede the complex forms, in the experi- 
ence of the human mind; they assume that the simpler 
forms always produce the more complex forms; that the 
simpler forms of life, therefore, are the progenitors of the 
next higher forms of development, continuing on through 
the series. 

Second. Because variation is constantly going on in 
the physical, animal, and vegetable worlds, therefore 
variation is the chief factor, in the way of excitation, of 
all the different forms of animal life, working under the 
guidance of the law (?) of “selection,” according to 
Darwin; “the survival of the fittest,” according to Spen- 
cer; or, “the struggle for life,’ of Huxley. 

Third. Because the lower animals have all the essen- 
tial vital organs that Man has, therefore Man must have 
sprung from the lower animal life. 

Fourth. Because the skeleton of Man closely resembles 
the skeleton of some of the lower animals, therefore Man 
must look to those lower animals for his progenitor. 

Fifth. Because the embryo of the human species close- 
ly resembles the embryos of certain of the lower animals, 
and follows a similar course of development for a time, 
therefore Man is an outgrowth from those lower forms of 
animal life; merely an offspring from the lower forms 


of animal life. 
22 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 23 


Sixth. That Man has the “ear-marks’’ of the lower 
animal life in his body, which must prove that he sprang 
from those lower forms of animal life, the ear-marks of 
which he bears. 

Though briefly stated, these six propositions contain 
all the arguments given by the Evolutionist in support 
of his belief that the progenitor of Man was one of 
the four kinds of the anthropoid ape. We will consider 
these propositions in the following chapters: 

First. The general proposition that the simpler forms 
always precede the more complex forms, is perfectly 
true, as we believe. Especially is this true in the working 
of the human mind, and so in the experience of the race. 
But the further proposition that the simpler forms al- 
ways (?) or even ever produce the more complex forms 
is, to our mind, not true; it is denied. And especially is 
this denied in the matter of the production of the animal 
kingdom, because it involves an impossibility, as we shall 
show. 

In the working of the human brain, the simpler 
thoughts may be the precursors of more complex 
thoughts, but they did not cause the thoughts. In the 
case of the inventor, the simpler machine precedes the 
more complex machine almost every time. “Out of the 
wheelbarrow came the four-wheeled carriage,” it is said. 
Now, technically, that is not true at all. The wheel- 
barrow, per se, had nothing whatever to do with the 
coming of the carriage; but the human mind produced 
it by reasoning, by analogy. Having seen that the wheel 
will carry the load, and revolve and thus make headway, 
if it is balanced, it is reasoned that four wheels, properly 
placed, will need no balancing, and make the same ad- 
vance with every turn in unison. Just so in every human 
experience; but the simpler forms never produce the 
more complex. They may lead up to the more complex 
forms, but it is the brain that is led; and the brain that 
produces, by reasoning, by induction, or analogy. Here 
is an adequate cause at work to produce an effect. But 
in the evolutionary scheme there is no cause set up to 
produce the advancement, only the inherent power stored 
up in the “fat corn-stalk’; and which is only the vital 


24 WHAT IS MAN? 


principle of that form of life, it has to do with that form 
of life only—no other. (See Chapter V.) Asa matter of 
fact, we believe the simpler forms of life did precede the 
more complex forms, not because they were commissioned 
to build the animal world, but because the earth was not 
fitted for the more complex forms of life. We deny that 
the simpler forms produced the more complex forms, any 
more than the wheelbarrow produced the four-wheeled 
carriage. 

Second. It is assumed that because changes or varia- 
tions are constantly occurring in the physical, animal, 
and vegetable worlds, these variations are progressive 
processes; as if with a definite object in view, and there- 
fore ending when the object had been attained, viz., per- 
fection. There are no limits, no boundary lines in the ani- 
mal world; that genus is as liable to change as variety; 
and it being a progressive process, variety is as liable to 
give birth to a new genus, as a new variety of the same 
genus. That no animal was ever created by a Creator; 
but that the whole animal world, including Man, just 
grew up; was produced and developed by virtue of this 
progressive variation, from the miniature, parent cell, 
the moneron, to Man; and that these changes are guided 
only by the law (?) of “selection,” “the survival of the 
fittest,” or “the struggle for life’; whichever form you 
please, as they are all one and the same thing, they say. 
Mark you, they nowhere give the cause of the develop- 
ment; the impetus that is to inaugurate and produce 
the new form, only that it is the tendency in nature to 
change by advancement towards perfection of structure; 
a continuation of an inherent power stored up in this 
miniature life-cell, the moneron. And which inherent 
property is life. Evolution is the sole cause set up, being 
guided by selection. That because there are variations 
in the personalities of animals, and these variations con- 
stitute varieties when grouped together, these same 
varieties may keep on varying and “Thus after diverg- 
ing in characteristics until a thousand or a million genera- 
tions have passed, an entire new genus may have been 
developed.” (Darwin.) 

From the above quotation, it will be seen that the whole 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 25 


theory hangs or turns on the word may. He does not 
say that it will produce a new genus; he does not know 
that it will, but only claims that it may. Now I submit 
that, for as uncertain and evanescent a thing as a theory, 
to rest on so indefinite a supposition as the word may 
stands for, places the entire proposition in the doubtful 
category. Even Darwin claimed no more than a bare 
possibility for his theory, and inasmuch as it has never 
been verified, that is the sole basis on which it is now 
called a branch of civic science. Are we, in the face of 
all nature to the contrary, as we see it exemplified daily, 
and as all history has exemplified it in the past, to accept 
it as having worked out to confirm the uncertain may 
as a reality, when neither Mr. Darwin nor any other 
naturalist has ever seen it thus work out, or even ever to 
have had a single scintilla of proof that this may had 
materialized, or ever will materialize? But accept it as 
truth simply because a few men have, in their metaphysi- 
cal speculations, suggested that it may have done so long 
years ago, but since which time nature has changed its 
plans? 

Every observant person must be cognizant of the fact 
that changes are constantly occurring in nature. Varia- 
tion and change are specialties of nature, but they are 
not the only specialties in nature. The law of stability 
comes in, to regulate and limit variation and change to 
certain boundary lines. “Through all the ages one un- 
ceasing purpose runs.” So we challenge the proposition 
that variation is the chief factor in the way of cause, or 
excitation, of all the different forms of animal life. 

It would be a very rigid law of nature that would say: 
The acorn shall produce an oak exactly like the parent 
tree from which the acorn fell. The branches shall be 
exactly the same in number and likeness. The lower 
limbs just the same distance from the ground, at a certain 
age of the tree, and the diverging limbs are to be at the 
same angle from the trunk; that the branches shall point 
north, south, east or west, just as, perhaps, the limbs on 
the parent tree did, else it is a new species. That is 
entirely too rigid, too scientific; nature is not scientific 
in that way. There are no two oaks exactly alike; but 


26 WHAT IS MAN? 


instead, oaks are of all manner of forms, shapes and sizes, 
yet all are oaks. 

No two human faces are alike, perhaps, in all the 
1,750,000,000 inhabitants of this globe; and probably 
if all who had ever lived on this globe were here now 
to be scrutinized, no two could be found just alike, but 
each one different from all the others. An infinite varia- 
tion, yet all belong to the genus Homo. 

There are no two horses exactly alike; all differ from 
the others in some minor points perhaps, but all are dif- 
ferent from the others; yet they are so nearly alike that 
any one who has never seen a horse, can tell a horse the 
next time he sees one. They are horses, notwithstand- 
ing they have been undergoing changes and variations 
ever since the creation. Their livers may not be alike ana- 
tomically, just like the branches of the oak, but they all 
have livers that perform the same functions in each in- 
dividuality. Some may be more perfect in size, shape 
and functional activity than others. 

There can be no dispute over the well established fact 
that there is constantly going on a variation in the animal 
and vegetable worlds; and by this variation, new varieties 
may be produced. But we affirm that after all these 
variations have taken place, there are no new genera 
produced, by reason of those variations, but that all are 
true to the genus of their progenitors. 

In his “Origin of the Species,” Mr. Darwin very plain- 
ly describes the process and gives his theory as to the 
variations; and illustrates by citing the sheep in the 
animal kingdom, the pigeon in the feathered tribe, and 
the strawberry in the vegetable world, pointing out the 
great number of varieties in each genus. He maintains 
that all these varieties (here he uses the term species) 
of the pigeon originated from the rock-pigeon, and as- 
cribes to ‘‘selection” the cause of the variations. Very 
probably he is right; I have no discussion on that point, 
but entirely endorse his doctrine that varieties of any 
bird, animal or plant may be multiplied ad infinitum by 
selection, care and environment. But, in all the cases 
cited, the selection was exercised and enforced by the 
breeder—it was not a self-executing selection. His ar- 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 27 


gument is long and scientifically minute, but he utterly 
fails to substantiate his contention; for, be it remembered, 
when he gets through with his illustrations, all the indi- 
vidualities of all these multiplied varieties, every one of 
them, are just what they were when he started, viz.: 
sheep, strawberries, and pigeons; no new genera have 
been produced. Though he has experimented in rais- 
ing pigeons for twenty years, and in the time has pro- 
duced some seventeen varieties, yet they are all of them 
pigeons, as he affirms. They are all sheep or pigeons or 
strawberries, just as they were when he began experi- 
menting. There has been neither transition from de- 
scent, or transmutation after birth, but all variations 
have occurred inside of the boundary lines of genus. 

Mr. Darwin cites almost innumerable variations of type, 
which he calls species; but he never cited a case of a 
new genus having sprung up from ordinary descent. 
Yet he insists that all species came into existence by ordi- 
nary descent, ordinary procreation, and entirely repudi- 
ates transmutation. Now, Haeckel, Spencer and Huxley 
insist on transmutation as a means of forming new 
genera. Thus they do not agree among themselves as 
to the means by which the necessary end is reached. Dr. 
Haeckel and Mr. Spencer both say: “Without progressive 
heredity and transmutation, our theory of the evolution 
of the species is not possible.” 

Mr. Darwin is fully convinced and asserts that, “Every 
trifling variation that occurs, and especially those varia- 
tions that are so marked and noticeable as to constitute a 
species, is at all times for the benefit of the individual.” 
He even holds that extinction of a species or a genus, by 
his law (?) of selection, or the survival of the fittest, is 
wholly conservative, because it would give rise to some- 
thing better, since all organic beings tend to rise in the 
scale. He says: “It may metaphorically be said that 
natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through- 
out the world, the slightest variations, rejecting those 
that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good. 
Silently and insensibly, whenever and wherever oppor- 
tunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being 


28 WHAT IS MAN? 


in relation to its organic or unorganic conditions of 
Bites) 

Now is not that a most remarkable sagacity for a 
law to exercise? Especially so when the law is formu- 
lated by a human being. Just think of it—he is here 
ascribing to a law, the intelligence of deity! But, if it 
is true, how comes it that reversion is notoriously com- 
mon? Has there been a mistake made by this all-potent 
law (?) of selection, some time in the past generations? 
Or is it the great law of heredity asserting itself anew? 
He has just said that all variations are for the benefit 
of species. 

Lamarck was the first to claim an “innate and in- 
evitable tendency towards perfection in all organic 
beings.” It is presumed that he means physical, ana- 
tomical perfection. If he does, that point seems to have 
been reached long, long ago. Now, if there is any such 
innate tendency in the structure of organic beings, as 
Lamarck tells about, how comes it that there are new 
varieties (not new genera) springing up in the domes- 
ticated animals, because under domestication selection 
is enforced by the breeder and therefore variation is 
very greatly promoted; yet the anatomy is precisely 
the same as it has been since history began to be writ- 
ten? Leave those improved varieties, which are the re- 
sult of enforced selection, to themselves for a few years 
and we see them revert to the original from which they 
started. Why is it? In the wild state of nature, varia- 
tion is not a very marked process. The tendency here 
is infinitely less, if not indeed wholly wanting. It is 
said by eminent naturalists, of the female mallard duck, 
that 1,000,000 of them seen together look as nearly alike 
as 1,000,000 grains of wheat. Their description to-day 
tallies exactly with the description of them in Egypt 
five thousand years ago. Again, look at the rock-pigeon, 
which has been the same since the creation, as far as 
we know. Mr. Darwin says: “It only began to vary 
when domesticated,” so that, in a state of nature, they 
may be said to be the same that they were at the time 
of the creation, or at least since history began to be 
written. Now, if these two specimens—or, if the one 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 29 


specimen which Mr. Darwin says only began to vary 
when domesticated—had withstood all efforts of this 
all-potent law of selection while in the wild state, and 
only yielded when domesticated, why should not all stand 
the same show? All existing under the same laws of 
nature. 

But, how does that comport with Mr. Darwin’s ad- 
mission, when he says: “Looking not at any one time, 
but at all time, if my theory is true, numberless inter- 
mediate varieties, linking closely together all the species 
of the same group, must assuredly have existed.” 

If the animal world was ever in such a condition of 
chaos as to consist of innumerable transitional forms, 
whence comes the order that now exists in that same 
world? What influence was brought to bear upon this 
innumerable throng of transitional forms, to induce or 
force them to form themselves into well defined genera? 
Certainly it could not have been “selection,” as that is 
the power which he declares has produced this innumer- 
able throng of transitional forms. How, then, was order 
brought out of chaos? According to his teaching, the 
tendency of nature is to produce changes, 1.e., varieties, 
purely for the benefit of the individual. How, then, 
could that same influence work towards systematizing 
and classifying its subjects into well defined genera, thus 
restoring order out of chaos? 

But again: According to Mr. Darwin, this chaotic 
condition should exist to-day, as well as at any time in 
the past, because he says: “Looking not at any one time, 
but at all time,’ etc., numberless intermediate varieties 
must have existed. Now, in the light of the fact, not 
theory (please mark that), that the animal world is not 
to-day in the chaotic condition, but consists of orderly, 
well marked genera; the absolute absence of any inter- 
mediate forms whatsoever; that geology exhibits no 
traces of such a thing as intermediate or transitional 
forms, but on the contrary establishes the fact that well 
marked genera existed as far back as the Cambrian 
period, as much so as now; it is plain, indeed it neces- 
sarily follows, that his admission annihilates his theory 
of evolution, and establishes by his own words the fact 


30 WHAT IS MAN? 


{ 
that his theory is not true. It further demonstrates the 
fact that the boundary lines of genus have always ex- 
isted since the creation. Thus far and no farther, says 
the law of stability. It seems evident that the Creator 
did not intend that there should be that chaotic condition 
in the animal world; and that is the probable reason why 
the different genera will not breed when put together ; 
they are not fertile with each other. You may outrage 
nature, but you cannot profit by the outrage. This mat- 
ter of mixing or amalgamating the genera has been tried 
over and over again, times almost without number, under 
the most favorable circumstances that the great inge- 
nuity of man could invent and control, and it has never 
been accomplished. There can be no forced amalgama- 
ticn of the genera even; and, in a state of nature, it is 
an unheard of procedure for different genera to unite 
for procreation. 

Mr. Darwin practically ignores the classifications of 
the zoologist of to-day, and seeks to do away with the 
term genera. He says: “I look at the term species as 
one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a 
set of individuals closely resembling each other. It does 
not essentially differ from the term variety. The term 
species thus comes to be a mere useless abstraction. No 
observer can determine for another, even if he can do 
so for himself, which of these forms ought to be called 
species and which varieties.” Here he uses the term 
species in place of the term genera. To demonstrate 
the difficulties and uncertainties of classification, he cites 
the following, which rather goes to show that zoology 
and botany are more fads than sciences: “Mr. Watson 
has marked for me 182 British plants which are generally 
considered as varieties, but which have all been marked 
by botanists as species. Mr. Babington gives 251 species, 
whereas Mr. Bentham gives only 112; a difference of 
139 in the same individuals.” 

These illustrations seem to show, as far as they go, 
that the classification of species is a mere matter of opin- 
ion. Nevertheless, the term species has been substituted 
for genera by Mr. Darwin; or, as Grover Cleveland 
would say, the term genus has been retired into “in- 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS — 31 


9 


nocuous desuetude,” and the more flexible and ambigu- 
ous term species used in place. J am persuaded there is 
good reason for that procedure on Mr. Darwin’s part. 
For instance, if the theory of evolution be true, there 
could be no such thing as genus; but instead the world 
would be full of those transitional forms he has been 
telling us about. Of course, if such were the case, there 
could be no such thing as a well defined genus in the 
animal kingdom, but all would be relatives, consisting 
of fine gradations of varieties of the same blood or 
stock. Mr. Darwin acknowledges that the term species 
is such an ambiguous term that it may be used to mean 
anything from genus down to variety, and is used by 
different writers to designate genus in one place, and 
variety in another. There are numerous places, in his 
“Origin of the Species,” where that has to be done, in 
order to be intelligible. As an example, take the “Origin 
of the Species.” Any one who takes the pains to read 
that work carefully, will see that in the term species, he 
means every creature that has existed on this earth, 
living or dead, from the earliest dawn to the present 
time; totally ignoring genus in all cases, because, from 
the evolutionary standpoint, all are blood-relatives. That 
is logical on his part, however absurd it actually is, when 
looking at the facts of biology. What possible use could 
the term genus be to such an idea, or theory? 

Now is it true that all flesh is one? That all animal 
life is of one blood? Holy Writ says: “But God giveth 
it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his 
own body. All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is 
one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, an- 
other of fishes, and another of birds.’ Do not your 
“eyes and senses confirm and verify the exact truth of 
this quotation? Surely they do. It seems very plain 
that there is a great difference in the flesh of the ox and 
the flesh of the bird; a great contrast in the muscular 
structure of the bird and the fish. Think of the mus- 
cular structure of a fish being changed to that of a bird, 
and then again, from that of a bird on through numerous 
gradations, to that of a man, simply by virtue of the 
law (?) of selection being brought to bear on the mother 


32 WHAT IS MAN? 


fish, while the ovum was being constructed in nature’s 
own workshop. A most wonderful sagacity for a father- 
less, homeless, tunlocated, undirected law to exercise. 
Perhaps I had better have said “exorcise.” 

But let us see how physiology considers this exorcism 
—see how it is outraged by such a doctrine. 

It is Mr. Darwin’s claim that man came up through 
the mollusks, ganoids, amphibians, reptiles and_ birds. 
Now, all mammalia and birds have red, warm blood; 
whereas, all reptiles, amphibians and fishes have cold 
blood; so that it would be anatomically, physiologically 
and chemically impossible (under ordinary circum- 
stances) that a warm-blooded progeny should spring 
from a cold-blooded ancestry; to say nothing of genus. 
The red blood corpuscles of all mammalia have no 
nucleus, whereas the red blood corpuscles in all other 
vertebrates, as birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, have 
a nucleus. The red blood disc in man is different from 
that of any animal, and characteristic. The red blood 
disc varies in shape and size in every species, being much 
larger in all birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. The 
bones in all mammalia have cavities filled with marrow, 
while the bird has air-cells in its bones, to impart light- 
ness to them. Some of the vertebrates have neither allan- 
tois or amnion, while others have both. Now here is a 
new method introduced in the middle of a series of 
vertebrates. Do you think selection had anything to do 
with it? Some of the vertebrata perform the act of 
respiration, technically, by means of water—they cannot 
breathe air—while others cannot respire water at all, but 
must have air; one set have gills, while the other set 
have lungs. The glands of the skin of the bird grow 
feathers; the glands of the skin of the sheep grow wool; 
the glands of the skin of the dog grow hair. Surely it 
would be a miraculous intervention to change the func- 
tion of the glands that had been endowed with the func- 
tion of growing hair, to that of growing wool or feathers, 
or vice versa. The bird, covered with feathers, and whose 
progeny are brought forth by incubation, changed to, or 
changing itself into a mammal whose skin grows hair, 
and whose progeny are brought forth by gestation; and 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 33 


all this phantasmagoric show is brought about by virtue 
of an influence being brought to bear upon the mother, 
while the primordial form is yet in embryo; by what 
power? Why, by the wonderful power of “selection,” 
or bodily transmuting it, after birth, into another genus, 
because of its having survived longer in the struggle for 
life than some others of its kind that were incubated in 
the same brood. All this is to be done without an im- 
petus of any kind; without a spark of intelligence, only 
selection, self-administered, and evolution does the rest. 
Does it not require a wide stretch of the imagination 
to believe such veritable nonsense as that? And yet by 
some it is called science. 

Please bear in mind, reader, that this law (?) does 
not act with anything like regularity. All subjects are 
not treated alike, by any means, for it is only claimed that 
occasionally this power is exercised; only on a few fa- 
vored ones among the great numbers contesting suc- 
cessfully in the life-struggle. Does natural law have 
any favorites? If selection is really a law of nature, 
will it not affect all subjects alike under like circum- 
stances? Could anything but a supernatural interven- 
tion prevent it from affecting every individuality amen- 
able to it exactly alike? 

Let us make that matter plain and clear. When the 
first living cell, or family of cells, the monera, was in 
some way or other, not yet explained by the law (?), 
brought forth a living creature or creatures, they must 
have been endowed with that potentiality, that power 
requisite to advance itself, in each successive genera- 
tion, until Man was reached. ‘That is to say, the image 
of Man must have been stamped, as it were, upon each 
‘cell; and likewise with each successive generation until 
Man was reached. Then all in each generation would 
have advanced alike, because a law treats all its subjects 
amenable to that law alike. If such were the case, there 
would not be anything but the genus Homo on this 
earth to-day; but they did not all make the same ad- 
vance toward Man; they kept stopping off at different 
stations along the line, and thus formed all the different 
species of animals in the world. There must have been 


34 WHAT IS MAN? 


a freak of nature, or it could not have come out that 
way. As an explanation of this extraordinary freak of 
nature, it is claimed that this potentiality was only con- 
ferred on a few favored ones, representatives of each 
species, by this law of selection, or the survival of the 
fittest, otherwise none would have advanced. So that 
it was only the exceptional action of the law that gave 
us, as well as all other animals, our existence. Is not 
that a brilliant explanation of nature? Am I not justi- 
fied in saying Man is an accident, if Darwinian evolution 
is true? But again: This silly explanation of nature 
involves another serious consideration; it recognizes an 
impossible condition, at least so thought, viz., that mat- 
ter is endowed with intelligence. Is that not reductio ad 
absurdum? 

There is a great perplexity in my mind to this effect: 
Since, according to Darwinism, all animal life is due to 
evolution, via one common stream, why did the process 
stop short when Man was reached? Did it cease because 
it had reached a perfect accident? 

The theory of evolution was originated—was evolved 
and promulgated on purpose to get rid of the miraculous 
in the creation of the animal world and the immutability 
of the genera. It was put forth as a means to do away 
with the necessity of a miracle of creation, in the pro- 
duction of each kind of animal. Mr. Darwin says so 
himself: “I had just two objects in view when I wrote 
this book, viz., to controvert the dogma of separate crea- 
tions; and to substantiate my theory.” That very senti- 
ment is the life of the evolutionary theory to-day. It 
has no other reason for acceptance. The reasoning’ is 
a dismal failure when examined closely. The theory of 
evolution invokes and involves a miracle at every turn 
to reconcile its absurdities; but the whole scheme is a 
deception and a fraud, as we have seen and shall further 
see. 

There is a power, silently invoked by the evolutionist, 
to work and complete his chain at every link. It mat- 
ters little, it makes no difference what you call that 
power; it must be there or the chain will not be com- 
pleted; no, not even be begun. ‘There are some people 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS — 35 


who cannot see the necessity of such a power, or, if they 
do, ostensibly deride and ignore it. This is where the 
philosophers (?) prefer to crib causation by hair- 
breadths, rather than take it in a bolus of creation of 
each species. 

Would it be any more of a miracle for the Great 
Architect to create Man in an instant of time directly, 
than to spend one hundred million of years to accom- 
plish the same object by evolution, even if evolution were 
possible, involving a thousand miracles in the process? 

Martineau says on this point: “They manifestly want 
the same causality, whether concentrated in a moment 
or distributed through incalculable ages; only in draw- 
ing upon it, a logical theft is more easily committed 
piece-meal than wholesale. The argument is a mere ap- 
peal to an incompetency in the human imagination, in 
virtue of which magnitudes evading conception are 
treated as out of existence; and an aggregate of inap- 
preciable increments is simultaneously equated—in its 
cause to nothing—in its effect to the whole of things. 
Surely it is a mean device for a philosopher thus to crib 
causation by hair-breadths, to put it out at compound 
interest through all time, and then disown the debt.” 

Yes, I have heard men say that they did not believe 
in miracles; that there never was a miracle performed. 
Now such an one must be very wise. He never saw 
anything that excited his wonder, surprise or astonish- 
ment. Will such an one just please explain himself? 
Or I will give him a simpler problem. Just explain 
oxygen or hydrogen; and tell us why it is that these two 
gases, chemically united in proper equivalents, will give 
us, as a result, water? To me, the world is full of 
’ miracles. Every manifestation of life is a miracle. 
Every tree and every blade of grass are miracles. The 
world itself is the sum total of all the miraculous. Can 
you find anything in nature that you can explain ab 
initio ? 

Man is a miracle; he cannot be accounted for on any 
other basis. It is entirely inadequate to say Man came 
by evolution from the lower animal life, because there 
is no causation; evolution, per se, is neither a controlling 


36 WHAT, IS MAN? 


law, nor a producing cause, but simply a description of 
the phenomenal order. 

This law of “selection” is a very peculiar power. You 
will observe that it is a “something” without beginning 
or without an ending. It is not executed by any execu- 
tive power, but is entirely self-executing. It is not guid- 
ed by any intelligence, outside of itself. Yet it appar- 
ently originates ideas, and puts them into execution. It 
even divines when and where an improvement can be 
made in the structure and construction of the animal 
body, especially when the structure is soon to be used 
for a different purpose than that heretofore used, and 
proceeds to perfect the structure for its future use. It 
is capable of even converting the swim-bladder of the 
fish into a minute and perfect lung structure. It stretches 
out the giraffe’s neck so that it can browse off of the 
higher branches of the trees in case of drought and a 
consequent failure of grass, thus showing its decided 
partiality to this animal over all other animals in Africa. 
Indeed, it seems to be the great I am. Mr. Darwin 
says it is a law of nature. But are not these unusual 
and wonderful attributes to ascribe to a law? A law 
has no intelligence in itself, but expresses the intelligence 
of the maker of the law; and it is to be enforced by the 
executive power of the state; it is not self-executing. A 
law applies to all its subjects alike; it has no volition to 
make a choice; it shows no partiality to its subjects, but 
the executive power whose duty it is to enforce the law 
may show partiality. This is the personality or power, 
if you please, which they strenuously ignore. 

The word “selection” can be understood when it is 
used in the sense of its etymological meaning; as, for 
instance, a breeder selects or exercises selection in the 
choice of the stock he is to breed from, 7.e., he chooses 
that which he wishes to; but when you enlarge its 
meaning and, in so doing, deify the word as a law of 
nature, ascribing to it infinite and miraculous powers 
of intelligence, volition with the ability to enforce its 
will, as is done in this case, I submit that you have gone 
beyond the confines of reason; that you have set up 
an idol—a false god to worship in the place of the true 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 37 


God—because you have ascribed to this idol the attributes 
of the Deity. 

The phrase, “the struggle for life,’ is easily under- 
stood as it applies to the individuality from its birth to 
its death. This is no occult, mysterious, unseen power, 
but a reality. Right here is the reason why Haeckel, 
Huxley and Spencer invoke the power of transmuta- 
tion. They simply transfer their occultism to another 
phase of the same transaction. They recognize the ne- 
cessity of having a mystic power included in their modus, 
or their theory is exploded; they are very particular not 
to emphasize it, however, but put all stress on the reality 
by boldly claiming the result, as exemplified by the 
animal world. Examine Mr. Huxley’s position, as de- 
scribed by Mr. Henry Drummond: “Mr. Huxley will 
make no compromise. The struggle for life to him is 
a portentous fact, unmitigated and unexplained. No 
metaphors are strong enough to describe the implaca- 
bility of its sway. The moral indifference of nature 
everywhere stares him in the face. For his successful 
progress as far as the average state, Man has been 
largely indebted to those qualities which he shares with 
the ape and the tiger. That stage reached, for thou- 
sands and thousands of years, before the origin of the 
oldest civilizations, men were savages of a very low 
type. They strove with their enemies and their com- 
petitors; they preyed upon things weaker or less cun- 
ning than themselves; they were born, multiplied with- 
out stint, and died, for thousands of generations, along- 
side of the mammoth, the urus, the lion, and the hyena, 
whose lives were spent in the same way; and they were 
no more to be praised or blamed on moral grounds, 
than their less erect and more hairy compatriots. Life 
was a continual free fight, and, beyond the limited and 
temporary relations of the family, the Hobesian war of 
each against all was the normal state of existence. The 
human species, like others, plashed and floundered amid 
the general stream of evolution, keeping its head above 
water as best it might, and thinking neither of whence 
nor whither.” 

I find no such declaration in Mr. Huxley S writings ; 


38 WHAT IS MAN? 


so, I suppose, we will have to give Mr. Drummond the 
credit for putting those words into Mr. Huxley’s mouth. 
However, that is a most graphic description, perhaps, 
of the struggle for life in the early history of the human 
race. But even if the statement were actually true, with 
no exaggerations, there are no arguments in it to sub- 
stantiate the doctrine of “transmutation,” or the doctrine 
of “the evolution of the species,’ by descent. He is 
here boldly claiming the results, long after the initiative 
of the origin of the entire animal kingdom. He is 
merely giving a fancy pen picture as his idea of exist- 
ing conditions, but which history, both sacred and pro- 
fane, disproves. 

Let us see what Mr. Darwin means by “nature,” of 
which “selection” is the representative god. He says: 
“I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product 
of many natural laws; and by laws, the sequence of 
events as ascertained by us.” If that is all there is to 
nature, how in the world can he ascribe, logically, to 
one of those laws the infinite intelligence and power that 
he does to selection—granting for the time being that 
selection is a law of nature? 

From that interpretation and definition of nature, how 
can there be any intelligence manifested in a law, since 
there is absolutely nothing to start with? The sequence 
of events as ascertained by us is the only tangible entity 
contained in the aphoristic definition; and of course that 
is witnessed after the action of the law is completed, and 
is therefore not a part of the law, but the effect of the 
law’s action. There is no place, then, for such a super- 
vising intelligence as he talks about, to manifest itself 
in his idol. 

Mr. Mivart, in a series of objections to the powers 
ascribed to “natural selection” by Mr. Darwin, held that 
“Natural selection is incompetent to account for the in- 
cipient stages of useful structures.” Because he doubt- 
ed the ability of selection to affect the embryonic form 
through the mother; or, if not through the mother, then 
the embryonic form direct. 

Now if Mr. Mivart is right, which he certainly is, 
how could natural selection change an invertebrate into 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 39 


a vertebrate? For this transition must have taken place 
in the incipient stages of its existence, since Mr. Dar- 
win affirms that, ‘““All changes come by ordinary procrea- 
tion.” Or if it occurred under Dr. Haeckel’s, Mr. Spen- 
cer’s or Mr. Huxley’s scheme of transmutation, which 
plainly means that the change, the mutation from one 
form into that of another form, takes place after the 
birth, some time during the life of the individuality ; 
how could the survival of the fittest so influence the 
structure of the individuality? For instance: The 
theory of transmutation would have a tired dog lie down 
to rest and get up a roaring lion. Or the family horse, 
while pursuing the even tenor of his way, would be- 
come suddenly transmuted into a giraffe, with all the 
spots in place, and he browsing off of the tops of the 
trees along the road. According to Mr. Huxley, then, 
the amphioxis was a boneless bundle of primary muscle 
at its birth, and some time during its life, from some 
unknown and mystic power, it was suddenly transmuted 
into a vertebrate being, not quite perfect, perhaps, but 
reasonably so; and, in turn, this imperfect vertebrate 
became the progenitor of all the vertebrates. Now, that 
is an illustration of the origin of the species from a 
human standpoint, and the absurdity of it is only equaled 
by the audacity of the author. 

But that is entirely too sudden for Mr. Darwin; he 
says the change of species is by ordinary descent, and 
that it is a very slow process, involving from a thousand 
to a million generations, which would mean from 33,- 
000 to 33,000,000 years. And, according to his tell, it 
is really a very uncertain process, for he says: “Here 
is a genus composed of six, eight or ten species; now, 
not all of these species is granted the favor of being the 
progenitor of some new and improved species, and there- 
fore to be blessed or cursed, as it were, by a future rep- 
resentation in the long ages to come, but the great ma- 
jority of those six, eight or ten species will become 
extinct and perhaps only one or two individualities of 
perhaps only one species, through selection having picked 
out the individualities, give birth to an advanced form, 
and from this fayoritism of nature or natural selection, 


40 WHAT IS MAN? 


by virtue of its being an improved edition, it will out- 
strip and eclipse all the other members of the six, eight 
or ten species, to the extent that all will become extinct 
save the progeny of this one favored one, and this will 
then constitute a new genus.” From this epitome of 
evolution from Darwin’s own hand, it will be clearly 
seen that it depends wholly on chance for the new edi- 
tion, the new genus; and the impression made upon the 
embryonic form by selection, what the new edition will 
be. And so this natural law (?), “selection,” has failed 
to act in all other instances but possibly the one in the 
six, eight or ten species, allowing all the rest to become 
extinct, and only preserving one out of possibly thou- 
sands in number. How is that for the action of a law 
of nature? It would seem from this illustration that 
the wants of nature make a deep impression on the 
primordial form, i.e., they did in the past eons of time, 
but for some unaccountable reason do not now have any 
influence whatsoever on the embryonic form. The em- 
bryonic form, nowadays, is just exactly what the two 
sexual elements uniting make it to be. The wants of 
nature cut no figure as to what the progeny will be. 
Of course all variations are prescribed, by this un- 
known power, for the benefit of the species, according 
to this doctrine, 7.e., this unknown power and _intelli- 
gence, brought into being away back at the birth of the 
monera, and continued along through untold generations 
and innumerable variations, divining what was neces- 
sary in the progeny in order to have it meet the require- 
ments of the law of “the survival of the fittest’”—this 
power picked out one among ten thousand or ten million 
individualities, and impressed the primordial form to 
the extent of producing from an invertebrate, a verte- 
brate progeny; which in turn became the progenitor of 
all the vertebrates following, of whatsoever form. 
Would not such a procedure require the total suspen- 
sion of the law of heredity, to make it successful? I 
do not for one moment think that any one will question 
the assertion that what we call heredity is indeed a law 
of nature. And does anybody believe that nature is so 
fickle that it will allow its laws, any of them, to be sus- 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 41 


pended so easily as to yield to the caprice of.a meta- 
physical philosopher, in order that he shall substantiate 
his theory? 

By this time we will have observed that there are 
several ideas or notions as to how and when the evolu- 
tion takes place, but there are still others. For instance, 
take Mr. Spencer’s idea as to the why and the wherefore 
of evolution, primarily. Although Mr. Spencer is so 
abstrusely technical, even recondite in his ideas, as to 
be difficult of understanding, if not indeed unintelligible 
to the ordinary individual, we will try him: ‘Organic 
evolution, in general, commenced with homogeneous mat- 
ter, just as the evolution of individual organisms com- 
mences. . . . Matter had a supernatural, indwelling 
tendency to develop imposed upon it in the beginning.” 
Lamarck said that “all organic changes tend to per- 
fection.” As the natural tendency of all evolution is 
perfection, the change and progressive development ad- 
vanced until it reached perfection in Man. Such must 
be the inference. So that, as Spencer says: ‘‘The pas- 
sage from an incoherent, indefinite homogeneity to a 
coherent, definite heterogeneity” is typical of the evolu- 
tion of the species. Thus, in this pedantic statement, 
we see his idea of the causes operating to produce the 
evolution, viz., the indwelling supernatural tendency to 
develop, resident in homogeneous matter. This would- 
be cause occupies the same position, relatively, in Spen- 
cer’s theory of evolution, that selection does in Darwin’s 
theory. 

If we consider Mr. Spencer’s definition of life in this 
connection, viz., “Life is the definite combination of 
heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and _ succes- 
sive, in correspondence with external co-existence and 
sequences,’ we may see what he had in mind when he 
wrote: ‘The passage from an incoherent, indefinite 
homogeneity to a coherent, definite, heterogeneity” ; viz., 
the changes of incoherent, indefinite, homogeneous proto- 
plasm into definite, coherent, heterogeneous organisms, 
by the inevitable change which must come to all such 
matter, because of the inherent, supernatural tendency 
to develop stored up in it. This is virtually claiming that 


42 WHAT IS MAN? 


this incoherent, homogeneous substance, supposed to be 
protoplasm, makes the changes im and of itself, from its 
own inherent impetus. That is “spontaneous” genera- 
tion. Dr. Haeckel calls it “spontaneous creation,’ which 
Mr. Huxley says is an impossibility. Does protoplasm 
have any such properties? Is it not rather only the 
inert material out of which living structures are made? 
Only the brick out of which the wall is built, not 
by itself, but by the builder, and at which point it be- 
comes vitalized? 

If we read between the lines, this is where and when 
Mr. Spencer accounts for the phenomena of life, and 
it is the only reason why he makes use of the word 
“supernatural”—to put the mystic elemént into the trans- 
action; as we have reason to believe that he knew that 
protoplasm has no disposition, per se, to that inevitable 
change which he ascribes to it, viz., development. 

This alleged inherent power stored up in matter is 
not the only cause of the modification of animal or- 
ganisms which evolutionists advocate. Lamarck says, 
and Spencer endorses the saying, that “animals have the 
capacity for being modified by processes which their 
own desires initiate.’ They both say: “From their 
first rudiment or primordium to the termination of their 
lives, all animals undergo perpetual transformations, 
which are in part produced by their own exertions, in 
consequence of their desires and aversions, of their pleas- 
ures and their pains, or irritations, or associations; and 
many of these acquired forms or properties are trans- 
mitted to their posterity.” Did you, dear reader, know 
that your mere desire would enable you to grow another 
finger, or, if perchance you had an aversion to four fin- 
gers, that you could reduce the number to three or two 
fingers by simply desiring it? 

Just here a quotation from Von Baer, an evolutionist 
of great proportions, caps the climax of absurdity: “A 
fish, swimming towards the shore, desires to take a walk, 
but finds his fins useless. They diminish in breadth for 
want of use (because he has landed on dry land) and at 
the same time elongate (because of his desire). This 
goes on with children and grandchildren for a few mil- 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 43 


lion years, and at last who can be astonished that the 
fins become feet? It is still more natural that the fish 
in the meadow, finding no water, should gape after air, 
thereby, in a like period of time, develop lungs.” Could 
anybody but a thoroughgoing evolutionist give utter- 
ance to such nonsense, and not be laughed to scorn? 
We all know that a fish taken out of water will die in 
a few minutes, as a rule; though there is one species 
of fish inhabiting the rivers of India, the Anabas scan- 
dens, which, by a peculiar conformation of the pharynx, 
consisting of pockets, which are filled with water all 
the time while in the water, is thus enabled to maintain 
life when out of water for a limited time; and while in 
the agony of asphyxiation, because they cannot respire 
air, they have been known to wriggle their bodies to 
some distance by the use of the long and sharp spines 
in the lower edge of their fins. But they can only 
maintain life for a limited time, while they can keep 
their gills moist, by means of this limited supply of 
water. This is the only variety of fish that has even 
this limited ability to “take a walk” on dry land. For 
a moment, consider the absurdity. The argument makes 
the fish to reason, and to have a desire or an aversion. 
Then, too, it asserts that from its desire its fins are 
changed into feet. To desire is to give a definite mental 
expression to an emotion, which is the result of having 
a distinct mental image, to be recognized by the con- 
sciousness. Have fish such mental capacity? The utter 
absurdity must be too apparent to even the dullest mind. 
That such trash should arrest the attention of the great 
reading public is beyond comprehension; but that such 
an absurdity should find endorsement by educated men 
is almost beyond belief. 

“Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit 
to his stature?” Even if the fish could have a desire, 
or an aversion, could it thereby change one scale on 
its body? We know that man is capable of having a 
mental image stamped upon his consciousness, can have 
strong desires and aversions; we also know that though 
he may repeat the desires throughout a lifetime, he is 
utterly unable to modify, even to the slightest degree, 


44 WHAT IS MAN? 
any part of his physical structure. “Can a leopard 
change its spots?” 

Surely Dr. E. Ray Lankester is right when he says, 
in his latest Oxford lecture: ‘Anything more prepos- 
terous than the theory of evolution, disseminated in 
works of contemporary men of letters, including novel- 
ists and poets, can scarcely be imagined.” 

It is to be presumed that he means such as the follow- 
ing, which are among Mr. Spencer’s proofs of evolution 
doctrine: Because provincialisms are common to all 
languages, it is proof of evolutionism, so held. Because 
there are divergences of structure between the English 
and allied modern languages, and some unlikenesses of 
idiom, he holds it to be a higher specialization, thus dis- 
tinguishing one language from another, just as a ‘higher 
specialization in some form of organic life is a higher 
specialization than the other forms of the same family, 
and thereby a new variety is formed. Because it is 
now conceded that all the different tongues have a funda- 
mental community of organization, it is proof that there 
has been an evolution in language; and that this evolu- 
tion in language is similar to the evolution of the species. 
He is simply throwing dirt in the eyes of the non-critical 
reader. Every man knows there can be no similarity 
between the evolution of language and the evolution of 
the species. One is the expression of a physical entity, 
while the other is the physical entity itself. 

It might just as well be held that because there is a 
difference between the chirp of a robin and the cackle 
of a hen, it is proof of the theory of evolution; and 
because the cackle of the hen is more prolix than the 
chirp of the robin, it is positive proof that there could 
not have been a special creation in either case. 

As neat as we can get to the style of the Sage of 
Derby, we should say the different theories of evolution 
when grouped together consist of a conglomerate mass 
of incoherent, baseless opinions, a heterogeneous hetero- 
geneity of metaphysical vaporings. 

Some evolutionists talk of “a few favored ones, suc- 
cessful ones, shooting ahead of their fellows, and then, 
having them physiologically shut off from their kind,” 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 45 


i.e., made into something else, they say: ‘Progress can 
only be made by one or two individuals shooting ahead 
of their fellows, and their life-gain can only be con- 
served by being shut off from their species, or their 
species shut off from them.” In this way they attempt 
to account for the genera, as they now exist. The propo- 
sition then is, in order to give evolution a chance, either 
to carry off those improved editions into physiological 
isolation, that is the new genus; or to remove the un- 
improved editions by wholesale death—extinction. Which 
will it be? Mark you, Mr. Darwin has formerly held 
for “the multitude of intermediate, transitional forms 
that must exist if my theory is true”; but in this illus- 
tration which he gives, he calls for extinction of the 
rest of the six, eight or ten species remaining. What 
would the rest of the six, eight or ten species, number- 
ing at least as many thousands if not as many millions 
of individualities, be doing all this time? Is it probable, 
is it possible for this one or two specimens to outdo all 
of them? Could one or two forward representatives, 
“shooting ahead of their fellows,” outlive all the rest 
of the six, eight or ten species, they all becoming extinct, 
thus leaving only the “new genus” the whole field? But 
if it were a possibility, where would this innumerable 
throng of intermediate forms come in, which he urges 
the necessity for? Is it not a plain proposition that the 
one or two smart specimens, shooting ahead of their fel- 
lows, could not under any circumstances, without miracu- 
lous intervention, outlive the other thousands if not mil- 
lions of the six, eight or ten species from which they 
sprang? With their advantages of prestige and natural 
increase added yearly, if not oftener? If they did out- 
live all the rest, as predicted, there would not be any- 
thing but the higher forms of life after a time, say when 
Man is reached; he would be the only representative 
of animal life. For, bear in mind, this is not the ex- 
ception he is illustrating, but the rule; and so it must 
occur between each gradation of genera. In either case 
he is undone, as we have all gradations of life right here 
now, and none of the intermediate forms of life at all. 


46 WHAT IS MAN? 


Take either horn of the dilemma you choose, and the 
fallacy of the baseless theory is proven. 

“Tf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ 
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by 
numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory 
would absolutely break down,” writes Darwin. He knew 
full well, when he wrote that challenge, that no man 
could prove the converse of that proposition, because 
Man has no jurisdiction over life. He cannot, by any 
means, institute experiments to prove it; he knows abso- 
lutely nothing of the simplest elements of life. Again, 
Mr. Darwin seeks to put the onus on his opponents by 
challenging them to prove a negative, contrary to all 
laws of logical arguments. But he is begging the whole 
question by assuming that nature works along those 
lines in the formation of complex organs. He cannot 
prove that any organ was ever made in that way. He 
has not one scintilla of proof that such a thing was ever 
done; he simply assumes it. Mr. Mivart’s objection to 
selection, quoted above, as being an inadequate cause, is 
most pertinent here. What would give the initiative 
impetus? Is it the wants of nature, merely, that is to 
initiate a new organ? Why, nature wants nothing; it 
is Mr. Darwin alone that is wanting something differ- 
ent from what he has, to substantiate his theory. He 
is building a new organism as a machine, and must 
have a new organ, to be used for an entirely different 
purpose from what it is now used; and he is going to 
make over an old organ into a new one, with an entirely 
new function and new construction—in fact, a new 
organ. Now what is going to initiate it? The principle 
of “use and disuse” cannot enter into the question at all, 
as yet, because even the initiative act has not yet been 
taken, and the new creature could not use an organ until 
it had one to use. 

As a notable example of this fabulous claim, he as- 
sumes that the swim-bladder of the fish was transformed 
into the lung, when the fish became a bird, after going 
through the reptile stages of innumerable forms. This 
proposition is just as reasonable as the one made above. 
Of course, considering the fact that there must have 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 47 


been numerous, successive, slight modifications; there 
must have been numerous, intermediate, transitional 
forms—a multitude of forms undergoing the modifica- 
tions, grading in all shades from fish to bird. Where 
are they? Science, geology and all history say there 
never was such intermediate, transitional forms of life 
on this earth. 

Now, kind reader, you who do not believe in miracles ; 
you who eschew the miraculous altogether, and cling only 
to the scientific in this life, please follow the actor, Charles 
Darwin, while he performs the wonderful feat of trans- 
forming a fish into a bird. You probably will never have 
the chance to witness such a feat again. He accomplishes 
the act by numerous, successive, slight modifications of 
the original fish, He makes a new specimen complete 
at every step in the process. Watch the different, fan- 
tastic forms as they come from his hands. He is the 
only man who has ever accomplished this wonderful 
feat in this manner. He is going to make the skin that 
now grows scales to grow feathers. He is going to 
grow wings and legs where now there is not a sign of 
them. It is an extremely slow process, so please watch 
him closely and do not let him fool you by any sleight-of- 
hand. 

(Enter Darwin.) 


“My dear friends, ladies and gentlemen: I am about 
to demonstrate before your eyes, what constitutes one 
step in the evolution of the species. I have chosen this 
particular case because it is a very interesting one, and 
I may say that it is a test of the theory of evolution. If 
I succeed in my object, I shall have demonstrated that 
evolution is the only scientific way in which to account 
for all the different forms of life on this earth. I now 
propose to change the fish into a bird, to make over the 
swim-bladder of the fish into the lung of the bird, and 
make the skin to grow feathers that now grows scales. 
I propose to construct legs, feet and wings, where now 
there are none. All this I do by virtue of the powerful 
law of ‘selection,’ by numerous, successive, slight modi- 
fications of the original fish. 


48 WHAT IS MAN? 


“The first thing that confronts me is the fact that the 
fish has a swim-bladder and no lungs. And the bird, 
which I will proceed to make by numerous, successive, 
slight modifications of the fish, must have lungs and no 
swim-bladder. ‘The reason I do this is that whereas a 
fish cannot get along very well without a swim-bladder, 
he has one; and as the bird which I now propose to make 
will have no use for a swim-bladder, but instead thereof, 
he must have lungs, I will kindly furnish it with the 
lungs. Now this I do by simply converting the swim- 
bladder of the fish into the lungs of the bird. Of course 
the bird has two lungs, and the fish has but one swim- 
bladder; but that fact will make very little difference, as 
I will just cut the swim-bladder in two, and then it will 
be all right. However, my friends, we cannot do this 
all at once, as I have concluded to do this by numerous, 
successive, slight modifications of the whole carcass of 
the fish. You will hardly be able to discover the differ- 
ences at first, but soon you will behold some curious crea- 
tures, as there will be innumerable, transitional forms of 
fine gradations all the way from fish to bird. Now for the 
first. 

“Presto! Here we have the first modification of a fish 
in the direction of a bird. As I have said before, you 
cannot discover the difference between this one and its 
progenitor, without close scrutiny. I have, though, 
divided the swim-bladder into two cavities by a middle 
partition, which you cannot see, and made the body a 
little shorter, the scales a little shorter and softer also. 
Hereafter I shall only announce the changes at inter- 
vals. 

“Presto! I see that ‘selection’ is working finely, not- 
withstanding I cannot tell when, where or how it is 
working; but as it is rather a slow process, we shall have 
to have patience. 

“Presto! Here is a specimen that is about 99-100 
fish and 1-100 bird. By ‘selection’ I have now divided 
the swim-bladder into numerous apartments, and marked 
a spot for the wind-pipe to bud from. You will observe 
that the scales are very small, soft and few in number. 
The body is very much shorter; the tail is also changing 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 49 


its shape; it is commencing to grow flatter horizontally 
than vertically. I have now decided to have the wings 
take the place of the forward fins on the sides; and the 
legs, I think, I shall have spring from the hinder fins. 
“Presto! Here is a specimen that is 75-100 fish and 
25-100 bird. In this specimen, please notice that the 
scales are all gone; the skin is a little irritable, there 
are several sores here and there, but that will be all 
right when it gets to bea bird. The irritability is caused 
by the loss of the scales, which were a protection to the 
skin while the fish was in the water. The body is very 
much shorter, in proportion to its size; it is more round, 
and the breast-bone—which, by the way, I have just 
inserted—is doing nicely. The neck is beginning to 
show up. The legs and wings have grown considerably, 
notwithstanding it has no use for them while in the 
water, in the capacity of a fish; but it is the future bird 
that we are looking to, and therefore no business of the 
fish. The gills, you will notice, are closing up as the 
neck lengthens. I see that the wind-pipe, technically 
called the trachea, is about an inch long, and there are 
blood-vessels beginning to push out into the partitions 
of the swim-bladder. I have also extended the nerves 
into this new structure. We are making fine progress, 
but I really cannot imagine what will ever become of 
all these intermediate forms; they seem so helpless. 
“Presto! Now here is quite a curious specimen. [ 
see that the swim-bladder is so changed that it is prac- 
tically useless for a fish; and not yet far enough ad- 
vanced to be of any use for the bird; so that it cannot 
stay in the water, neither can it stay out of the water, 
because it cannot swim when in the water, and it cannot 
breathe the air when out of the water. But he will 
learn that he has got to abide his environment. The 
gills are about closed up. I have closed up its mouth 
somewhat, also, and am just beginning to form the beak. 
You will observe that the wind-pipe is growing nicely. 
I will soon form what is technically called the larynx. 
I have already adjusted the tongue. The legs are now 
about an inch long; but they are of no use to the speci- 
men, because they are just stubs as yet, and they are sore 


50 WHAT IS MAN? 


on the ends from its trying to use them in walking. We 
will have to keep him more quiet. The wings are de- 
veloped to the end of the first joint, but as yet they are 
just clubs, with which he is trying to crawl, to save 
his sore stubs of legs. The skin is in a little more 
healthy condition, since it cannot go into the water, and 
is covered with soft hair or down, more or less. It 
is a hideous-looking creature, and somewhat resembles 
a reptile, though I cannot classify it. But it 1s 50-100 
fish and 50-100 bird. 

“Presto! My friends, I have had great trouble in 
keeping the life in the immediate progenitor of this 
‘species’; but by careful nursing I have succeeded in 
producing this new specimen; it is about 75-100 bird 
and 25-100 fish. The great trouble was this: It being 
half fish and half bird, the fish nature insisted on spawn- 
ing, and the bird nature insisted. on incubating its 
progeny. However, one happy thing decided the case. 
‘Selection’ decided that, inasmuch as it could not swim, 
it could not spawn; and so it had to incubate; but what 
a time I had of it to ‘break it in.’ I really thought, at 
one time, I would have to do as my friend Dr. Haeckel 
does sometimes, to interpolate a suitable specimen. You 
will observe that the beak is almost complete; it cannot 
close its mouth perfectly, because the lungs are not yet 
quite finished off, and I forgot to make a nasal cavity 
for the air to be respired through; but I will take that 
up right away. The trachea is now complete; all but 
the rings to hold it open, and so it gives me some trouble 
by its collapsing, when I have to run a bougie down its 
throat or blow vigorously into its mouth to make it 
breathe. The wings are as long as I am going to make 
them, but I have not yet put the bones in the last half; 
I think I shall have two bones there, as I expect to 
keep right on at this business until I make a man, and 
I know I shall want two bones in a man’s arms, The 
legs are complete, all but the toes. I think I shall have 
four toes, three in front and one behind, opposing, so 
that it can sit on a limb. The feathers are beginning to 
show up in great shape. I declare, however, it is a very 
helpless creature; I am at my wit’s end to know how to 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 51 


keep it alive. It will not eat anything but worms, its 
throat seems so tender; so I have the boys bring me 
worms every day for it to eat. It cannot fly, but it 
keeps its wings flapping and its tail wiggling. It is a 
very restless creature; I would not know what to call 
it. But we shall soon be through now. 

“Presto! Do you recognize this blackbird? You 
see that he sits on the limb erect. His toes are perfect, 
all but the nails. His wings are perfect, save the feath- 
ers in the last joint. His head is a little large yet, but 
that is a good fault for a young species. You see that 
he keeps his mouth shut now most of the time, but the 
nasal cavity does not just suit me yet; I am getting out 
a new shape for the turbinated bones. His eyes I have 
protected by a little membrane that I think he will find 
handy to sweep across the eye to brush off the dust; it 
is technically called the nictitating membrane. He still 
wiggles his tail too much; but when I get the long 
feathers in place, he will be all right. This specimen is 
99-100 bird and 1-100 fish. Like the first specimen I 
showed you, you could hardly tell that from the fish, 
this one you can hardly tell from a bird. He hasn’t 
learned to eat seeds yet, but he can eat corn-meal, all 
right. I have to gather worms for him yet. When he 
gets so that he can hop and fly I shall let him take care 
of himself, but he could not do it now. 

“Presto! I asked you if you recognized the last speci- 
men I showed you as a blackbird? I thought it was a 
blackbird at the time, but I see, since he is perfectly 
developed, that it is a crow. Do you not hear him ‘kaw, 
kaw, kaw’? Is not his plumage a beautiful green-black? 
You will see that he holds his tail in good taste, since 
the long feathers have been inserted. He can fly with 
ease, and delights in sitting on the topmost branches of 
the trees. He hunts worms diligently, and likes to pull 
up the green corn, just after it comes through the ground. 
He is very shy of mankind. 

“Now, ladies and gentlemen, you see that I have kept 
my word. Out of the fish I have produced a bird. It | 
has been a little tedious, and I have had to stay up nights, 
or lie awake nights, to think how to provide food for 


52 WHAT IS MAN? 


those hosts of intermediate, transitional forms. You will 
recall that I only displayed some six or seven speci- 
mens to you, but those were only a very small or frac- 
tional part of them, as compared to the great numbers 
of transitional forms which I did not exhibit, because 
the differences were so slight that I thought not to tire 
you with all the multitude of queer and fantastic forms. 
I thank you for your attention.” 


(Exit Darwin.) 


Profound silence was observed for a time by all pres- 
ent, as if awestricken at the conclusion of Mr. Darwin’s 
triumphantly successful demonstration. Presently a tall, 
slim man of mature years arose and said: “My dear 
friends, I have been closely watching the career of this 
great actor, Charles Darwin, for many years. I think 
he has done noble work for evolution. I am more firmly 
convinced than ever before that the great principle of 
evolution is a glorious truth. I am convinced that this 
principle will account for all the different forms of life 
now on this earth. But there is just one thing that is 
now bothering me, and that has bothered me in the past, 
in the working out of Mr. Darwin’s theory; and that is, 
these innumerable, intermediate, transitional forms of 
life which Mr. Darwin has so successfully produced in 
your presence. You will have noticed how difficult it 
was to sustain and perpetuate life in all of those forms. 
And especially in those forms of life that were half fish 
and half bird. You remember they could not stay in 
the water, because of the changes made necessary in the 
transition from fish to bird; neither could they stay out 
of water, because of the old fish nature, and also because 
they could not breathe the air, as yet. They could not 
fly; they could not swim; they could not walk. Il am 
really afraid that the cold winter would be very dis- 
astrous to stich a form of life. And then, who is there 
to bother to hunt worms for them to live on? And then 
again, the great difficulty of getting rid of all those 
seemingly necessary, intermediate forms of life, without 
leaving a trace of them, and restoring order out of this 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 53 


chaos! This has been a troublesome matter for me to 
deal with, I assure you. Of course this was Mr. Dar- 
win’s show, and I was only a pleased spectator; but I 
have a different plan, a different way of doing this busi- 
ness from that of the eminent actor whose work you 
have witnessed. In my plan I do not have all, or indeed 
any of those intermediate forms of life. I do away with 
this apparent necessity by simply transmuting one form 
of life into another form of life. I simply make a bird 
out of a fish at one stride, full-feathered and ready for 
business. In my case it was a blue-jay, and he was a 
beauty. I have conferred with my venerable friend 
across the Channel, and he fully endorses my position. 
In short, he endorses evolution of all kinds and all 
shapes. You. can count on him. at any and at all 
times and under all circumstances. And I, my friends, 
would not say a word derogatory to Mr. Darwin’s, or 
any other theory of evolution, being perfectly convinced 
that the principle of evolution is an eternal truth; and 
that the old dogma of the separate creation of each 
genus by a god is an ‘old chestnut.’ That much I know. 
And so I would say that it is our duty to adopt resolu- 
tions to the effect that evolution is the only scientific 
way to account for the different forms of animal life. 
Of course we do not need to say anything about this 
host of intermediate, transitional forms of life, or whether 
my way or Mr. Darwin’s way or any other man’s way 
is the best. We do not need to say anything about those 
minor differences of opinion; only to enthusiastically 
endorse the principle of evolution, keeping all those 
minor details, and in fact all differences, in the quiet. I 
thank you.” 

After this tall man had finished speaking, a heavy-set 
man, with large side-whiskers and a bull-dog jaw, arose 
and said: “Ladies and gentlemen: I am ever glad 
to add my word of testimony to this eternal verity, evo- 
lution. I am satisfied that the monera were the first 
form of life on this earth; and that all other forms of 
life sprang from this first form by evolution. That is 
sure! We have not the time to follow all these forms 
of life through all those different, transitional forms. It 


54 WHAT IS MAN? 


is enough to know that inasmuch as the bird has two 
bones in the outer or lower part of the wing, and the 
horse has two bones in his leg, and in fact all quadrupeds 
have the same, therefore it is plain that all quadrupeds 
came up by evolution through the birds. The monkeys 
have two legs and two hands; therefore I am satisfied 
that Man must look for his progenitor in some of the 
monkeys. Why, just look at it for one moment! All 
the lower animals have all the essential vital organs that 
Man has—brain, lungs, liver, stomach, heart, and, lastly, 
an intestinal canal. Does not that prove that Man is 
an animal? Again, there is one monkey that has the 
same number of teeth and the same number of verte- 
bre that Man has; therefore it must be true that the 
monkey is the progenitor of Man. In your resolutions, 
do not, I beg of you, say anything about these inter- 
mediate, transitional forms of life, or transmutation 
either. It does not make any difference which way it 
was done. It was done, and that is enough! But of 
one thing I am satisfied, viz., the struggle for life has 
had a great and profound influence on evolution of the 
species. This Hobesian war that has been waged, by 
each against all, has had a mighty effect in killing off 
vast numbers in the animal kingdom; therefore I am 
well satisfied that the struggle for life has been one of 
the chief factors in the development of Man from the 
lower animal life. The evolution has been accomplished, 
and that is enough for me. It ought to be enough for 
any one. I therefore endorse what the doctor preceding 
me said as to the ratification of the doctrine of evolu- 
tion. As being the only scientific explanation of the 
animal world by this convention. I also endorse the 
noble stand by the great actor in his demonstration of 
the principle of evolution. It is our duty to make this 
the sentiment of this convention. The great majority of 
the people will not investigate the subject for themselves 
and find out our differences as to the mere modus 
operandi of evolution, anyway, and so what is the dif- 
ference? I thank you.” 

Loud and prolonged applause greeted this sentiment, 
and resolutions were passed enthusiastically endorsing 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 55 


evolution as the only scientific solution of the enigma of 
forms in animal life on this globe, and also congratula- 
tions for Mr. Darwin’s brilliant exposition of the same. 

This scene illustrates the practical working of Dar- 
win’s theory in nature’s process, in the production of 
new forms and new genera, with new organs, by evolu- 
tion, from the supervising stimulus of selection. Does 
it not demonstrate the utter absurdity of the theory? 
There are some other very practical points brought out 
also, but which are left for the reader to figure out for 
himself. 

As has previously been shown, Lamarck thought and 
affirmed that ‘‘the use and disuse of organs, according 
to necessity, would account for the development of new 
organs or the lapse of others.” This is very loose con- 
structive reasoning. For instance, how could a bird 
use a wing before it had one to use? How could any 
animal make any use whatever of an organ before it 
had even the very most incipient beginning of the organ 
to use? What, then, would give the first impetus to 
nature’s process, to institute a new organ? Is it this 
very acutely discerning function, of the so-called law, 
“selection,” that is to decide the needs of the new species, 
originate and execute the enforcement of the plans? 
This intelligence (?), said to be a law of Dame Nature, 
wholly outside of the body, to discern and decide what 
organs the new species shall have? Was it selection, or 
use and disuse of organs, that discerned the need in the 
bird for a crop, in which to store its food during the 
day; and the gizzard to grind and mix the food at its 
leisure ; and originated the design of the same, made all 
the plans and specifications, and proceeded to execute 
the building of the same, by influencing the mother in 
some unknown way, to impress her progeny accord- 
ingly, while the future bird is yet being elaborated, in 
the primordial stage of its existence, in the workshop 
of the mother bird? This is where it would have to be, 
if it is to be at all. But just think for a moment of 
nature being so poverty-stricken that it has to resort to 
rebuilding an old form, when it makes a new genus. And 
then leaving the rebuilding, the making over of the old 


56 WHAT IS MAN? 


shack, to such an impotent nothing as evolution. Think 
of it for a moment! The Author of the lilies of the 
field, which in the magnificence of their decoration out- 
stripped even Solomon in all his glory, being so put to 
it for reserve power, exhausted and_ poverty-stricken, 
that He has to resort to such a makeshift as remodeling 
an old building as the habitation for a new creation. 
And not only doing this kind of business once, but at 
every divergence of the animal world doing the same 
thing. In the history of the world, nature never re- 
modeled a structure. Is nature poverty-stricken? 

The fish had neither crop nor gizzard; but the bird, 
after passing through all the reptilian species, according 
to Darwin, had both crop and gizzard. How, where and 
when did it get them? Was it while in the embryo bird 
that “selection” discerned that a bird should have a crop 
and a gizzard? Or was it the embryo bird that discov- 
ered that it should have a crop and a gizzard in its busi- 
ness, and, in some unknown way, made its wants known 
to this intelligent law, “selection,” that it really needed 
those organs to be up-to-date? And then this law pro- 
ceeded to originate the design, draw up the plans and 
specifications, and authorize the building of the same in 
the embryo bird? Which is it? 

From the Darwinian standpoint, it would appear that 
the whole procedure was at the instance of this law, 
“selection.” Again, we ask: Is not that a most wonder- 
ful, a most remarkable sagacity for a law to exercise? 
Deity could do no more. Is it possible that this law (?) 
of “selection” is set up as a god, to take the place of the 
Creator? It would seem so. 

In nature there is very little variation in the species. 
The would-be law of selection has very little use in 
nature, according to Mr. Darwin’s own testimony as 
regards the pigeon and the strawberry, for he says: 
“They began to improve just as soon as they began 
to be cultivated and cared for.” Previous to that time, 
they made no improvement. But in domestic animals, this 
potency, which Mr. Darwin would have one believe was 
a law of nature, and which he has named “selection,” 
is exercised by the owner or the gardener, thus varying 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 57 


the breed to suit his fancy. In horses, they breed for 
use, according as they want draft, or speed, or gait; but 
after all the selection that has been practiced in the 
history of the world, every one expects to and does raise 
horses of the variety bred from, not quaggas, or cows, 
as a result. So that “selection” is at least ten thousand- 
fold overestimated by Mr. Darwin in the natural world. 
We believe, as a matter of fact, that it does not exist, 
that it is not known at all in nature. 

We know that the use and disuse of organs has a 
great influence on the stability of the organs. We know 
that the exercise of an organ or a function, within rea- 
sonable bounds, strengthens that organ or function and 
develops its functional activity to its full capacity; that 
exercise of any organ means the perpetuation of the 
physiological life of that organ. And conversely, the 
disuse of an organ will result in the atrophy and the 
physiological death of that organ. A notable example 
in illustration of this truth is found in the eyes of the 
fish in Mammoth Cave. Those fish are blind, simply 
because they could not use their eyes in that dark cavern 
of the earth. And because, for generations, they had 
not used their eyes, those organs atrophied, and shrunk 
to nothingness, and finally failed to be reproduced in 
the progeny; they have no eyes. On the other hand, no 
new organs were ever made in response to the cry of 
need for.new organs. History records no such cases. 
Organic life is not like organic government in that you 
can create a new office and install a new officer at any 
time, having a dozen aspirants for the position to pick 
from. Organic life is a stable affair in that all in- 
dividualities whose functions are the same, have the same 
~ organs with which to perform those functions. All or- 
ganic forms of life are built on that basis. There is 
every reason to believe that no new organs have been 
added to any species since their creation. Neither is it 
reasonable to believe that the survivors of to-day have 
any less of the vital organs than did the first of the kind 
to be created. Most inconsistently, they insist strenu- 
ously on heredity as being a great factor in the process 
of evolution. Dr. Haeckel says: “If we cannot have 


58 WHAT IS MAN? 


progressive heredity and transmutation, our theory is a 
failure.” It is supposed that by progressive heredity 
he means a heredity that is quick to reproduce any new, 
progressive features developing in the progenitor, in the 
progeny. Such a heredity, for instance, as that which 
showed up in the fictitious case demonstrated by Mr. 
Darwin, making the progeny always to go a step farther 
than that which marked the development of the pro- 
genitor. That case certainly showed up a progressive 
heredity that ought to satisfy the most ardent; and yet, 
it is not in the least overdrawn, but just in accord with 
the necessities of the actor. Now, is that heredity? Not 
at all. The law of heredity must have been entirely sus- 
pended (in Mr. Darwin’s mind only), and selection had 
full sway, anticipating the requirements in the progeny 
to be, and executing its designs on the primordial form. 
Again I ask, do you think that the laws of nature are 
so fickle and so easily suspended as to cease operation 
at the behest of a philosopher, so as to allow him to 
demonstrate his theory? Hardly. The law of heredity 
was suspended in Mr. Darwin’s mind only; and all his 
creations are fictitious, the product of a fertile imagina- 
tion; they never had an existence, as proven by geology. 

If Man could suspend the laws of nature, we should 
not be surprised to see birds of paradise hatched from 
turtle’s eggs, or a goose incubated from a canary bird’s 
egg. Indeed, we might expect to see all kinds of nonde- 
scripts and monsters born into the world. But it is not 
so; this law, which we call heredity, is the omnipresent 
and most potent of all nature’s laws; it keeps the species 
in the middle of the road, as it were, reproducing the 
sum total of the peculiarities of the two sexual elements, 
uniting to institute the new being. While selection, if 
there be such a thing in nature, is always looking for 
something new, and actually adding new forms, despite 
heredity ; and transmutation, which has no existence only 
in some people’s minds, would constantly counsel modi- 
fication and. change. Could they work together har- 
moniously ? 

Think of two such incompatibles being yoked together, 
as heredity and selection! Heredity impressing all the 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 59 


peculiarities of genus and variety on the progeny, on the 
one hand; while selection is endeavoring, on the other 
hand, to induce the progeny to cut loose from its mother’s 
apron strings and strike out for itself, metaphorically 
speaking. Two antipodes working on a poor innocent 
creature at the same time. Heredity acting to preserve 
stability, and selection trying to destroy stability and 
produce something new. One says, “Come this way; do 
not stay in the old rut.” The other says, “Not so; fol- 
low the old type exactly.” Can you imagine two more 
incompatible energies or laws being invoked at one and 
the same time to accomplish a desired end? 

Would the law of heredity allow such a thing as that 
an invertebrate should give birth to a vertebrate animal, 
or a marsupial bring forth a mammal? Certainly the 
law of heredity must have been suspended entirely in 
these cases to give free rein to selection. But I appeal 
to all men of all nations, and to all history of all time, 
to answer this question: In whatever modifications there 
have been induced by selective breeding, are not those 
modifications always inside of the lines of genus, being 
restricted to the genus of the progenitors in every in- 
stance? Selection refuses absolutely to produce a new 
genus, even when it is enforced by man for curiosity’s 
sake. 

Dr. Haeckel, not being able to appreciate selection as 
the all-sufficient law, invokes transmutation to help his 
theory. This contemplates the change to take place in 
the individuality already in existence, and not in the 
progeny to be, while in the formative stage of its being. 
Bacon says: “Transmutation of one species into another 
species is an impossibility,’ and so it is. The notion of 
transmutation is a relic of the superstitions of ancient 
Egypt, continued down through the Dark Ages. Is it 
not astounding to see those superstitious ideas revived 
and renewed and advocated by educated men in this 
twentieth century? 

As has already been shown, Mr. Darwin entirely re- 
pudiates the doctrine, to his credit be it stated, and claims 
that all the different species came by ordinary descent. 
Thus with him the invertebrate must bring forth the 


60 WHAT IS MAN? 


vertebrate by numerous, successive, slight modifications 
of the form of the invertebrate organism. Would they 
not be a singular lot of nondescript specimens? But 
where are they? 

Herbert Spencer was the originator of the phrase, “the 
survival of the fittest,” as expressing the power that has 
produced the animal kingdom. He uses this expression 
in the same sense that Mr. Darwin uses “selection,” but, 
in addition, he invokes transmutation strongly, and holds 
that transmutation explains the absence now and in the 
past of this host of intermediate, transitional forms of 
life. And yet by some this is called classified knowledge. 

Certainly such fantastic fabrications tax the credulity 
of a sane mind to its utmost capacity. And yet the very 
people who are loudest in their endorsement of evolution 
as the science of life in the animal world, are the very 
ones who are ready to avow their disbelief in miracles, 
just as soon as the authorship is announced as God. 
But so long as the mystery is so deep as to be impene- 
trable by the human mind, and the authorship is unan- 
nounced but merely supposed to be an unknown, hidden 
or mystic power, exercised in some unknown way, these 
very people boastfully proclaim their acceptance and be- 
lief in the mysteriously fantastic, whatever it may be. 

To a tamely imaginative mind, nothing could be more 
miraculous than that the fish-spawn should produce a 
bird after Darwin’s plan, or that the fish should trans- 
mute itself or be transmuted into a bird, after Spencer, 
Haeckel or Huxley. These propositions, to my mind, 
reach the limit of ridiculous absurdity. Marie Corelli’s 
imagination was very mundane, when she wrote the 
“Romance of Two Worlds,” as compared to Mr. Dar- 
win’s “Evolution Phantasmagoria,”’ or the absurdity of 
transmutation. 

The man who succeeded in having his hens lay eggs 
with handles on them was quite considerate of ignorant 
humanity. He tells us just how it all came about, which 
I quote as follows from the New York Tribune: 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 61 


“JERSEYMAN EVOLVES RACE OF EDUCATED AND OBLIGING 
HENS 


“Robert E. Foster, Jr., of Newton, Sussex County, 
New Jersey, has, it is reported, succeeded in cultivating 
a race of chickens which produce eggs already fitted with 
handles for convenience in eating them. One exhibited 
was taken from the nest of a white leghorn hen. It is 
normal in size and general appearance, except that on 
the smaller end there is a continuance of the shell forma- 
tion, measuring half an inch at its base, tapering for 
nearly two inches and ending in two points which re- 
semble the tail of a fish. 

“The form of the excrescence is a curve, the smaller 
end resting near the middle of the shell of the egg and 
having a perfect resemblance to the handle of a teacup. 
The opposite side of the eggshell is flattened so that the 
structure will stand alone. The hens have laid seven eggs 
of similar conformation, each furnished with a well- 
defined handle. 

‘Mr. Foster has devoted a large portion of his life to 
a series of experiments in the cross-fertilization of flow- 
ers and fruits. The egg with a handle is a direct result 
of his experiments in superinduced evolution. Several 
weeks ago, while breaking an egg at the breakfast table, 
he conceived the idea that an eggshell with a handle, 
which would form its own cup, would not only save lots 
of dish-washing, but would be at once a scientific and 
culinary triumph. Thereupon he caused the inside of 
the building where the hens were confined during the 
_ winter to be painted white. Food was taken to the hens 
in large, white vessels, each having one handle. Water 
was furnished in similar vessels of a smaller size. 

“Across the single window white teacups were sus- 
pended on strings. No other furnishings of any other 
shape were permitted to be around the buildings. The 
hens were nightly sung to sleep to the tune of drinking 
songs. Within ten days many of the eggs had slight ex- 
crescences on one end, and after two weeks the new eggs 
had definitely formed handles. 


62 WHAT IS MAN? 


“One notable incident apparently facilitated the experi- 
ment. Mr. Foster has a large, white rooster which two 
weeks since escaped from his coop into a neighbor’s yard. 
The neighbor’s small son chased the rooster home and 
threw at him a broken white pitcher which had a large 
and conspicuous handle. The rooster was much fright- 
ened, and the hens witnessed the occurrence. 

‘From that time there was a rapid development of 
handles on each successive laying of eggs, until the 
present almost perfect form was attained. The natural- 
ist believed that fright and nervous shock accelerated the 
growth of the handles. 

“When the home market is supplied with the new and 
valuable acquisition, Mr. Foster purposes to place some 
of the developed eggs under a hen. The result will be 
awaited with eager and scientific interest.” 


Great stress is laid, especially by Mr. Huxley, on the 
fact that all animals have all the essential vital organs 
that Man has; and it is argued, that such being the case, 
Man must have sprung from the lower animal life. In 
other words, because all the higher vertebrata below 
Man have brains, livers, stomachs, kidneys, skins and 
alimentary canals, therefore Man must be a descendant 
of this long line of vertebrata. Here is a line of organic 
forms inhabiting the earth, all existing under the same 
natural laws, each and all animated by a vital principle, 
all breathing the same air, all nourishing their bodies 
in the same way, viz., by the ingestion, digestion, and 
assimilation of food, to develop the body and repair the 
waste occasioned by the burning out of the constituent 
tissues, or the oxidation and consequent disintegration of 
the constituent tissues that go to make up the organisms. 
Does it follow that because the lower animals have livers, 
and that Man has a liver also, that Man must necessarily, 
or even probably, have been a descendant of this lower 
animal life? We say not at all; they say yes. 

It is an undoubted fact that the lower animals have 
all the vital organs that Man has; but that fact, we hold, 
constitutes no proof whatever that Man’s progenitor 
must be looked for in the anthropoid ape. To the writer, 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 63 


the utter absurdity of this argument must be apparent to 
all. The reasoning reminds one of the Arkansas lawyer 
who was addressing a jury. The case before them was a 
damage suit against a railway company for killing a 
cow. The prosecuting counsel said: “Gentlemen of the 
jury: If the train had been running as slow as it should 
have ran, if the bell had been ringed as it ort to have 
been rang, or the whistle had been blowed as it ort to 
have been blew, none of which was did, the cow would 
not have been injured when she was killed.” (Puck.) 
To most minds, it would seem absolutely essential that 
these organisms should be similarly provided with vital or- 
gans, if all are amenable to the same laws. The laws of 
digestion are the same in all forms of life, in so far as 
that they eat much the same kinds of food. It takes the 
same process and the same juices, the same ferments 
and digestive elements to digest starch in the digestive 
system of the hog, cow or horse, that it does in Man. 
Each animal has the ability to select such food as is best 
suited to its use and liking, and so we have the Herbiv- 
ora and the Carnivora. All have to have stomachs, and 
we find that the adaptation is perfect in all, not only 
in size and shape, but in the adjustment of the digestive 
fluids according to the wants of each individuality. So 
far as the physical system is concerned, they are all 
governed by the same laws. This being the actual con- 
dition, why should they not all have the same vital or- 
gans? It would seem an actual necessity that 
each should have the same vital organs to per- 
form the same functions in each individuality. In 
the assimilation of food, including the process of 
- transforming the food into such nutrient substance and 
condition that it can be taken up by the absorbents and 
carried into the circulating blood, and by that stream 
distributed, to form an integral part of the economy, 
whether it be man or beast, is identically the same in all 
forms of animal life, in principle, only that some are more 
complex than others. Those functions are performed by 
the same organs, relatively, in each individuality, the 
same being more or less complex and elaborate accord- 
ing to the requirements of the organism. So far as 


64 WHAT IS MAN? 


we know, natural laws affect all subjects alike; there are 
absolutely no favoritisms in nature, evolutionists to the 
contrary, notwithstanding. The laws of nature cannot 
apply to one creature in one way, and to another, an 
associate, in a different way. The laws of nature are 
inexorable; they are not abrogated in favor of one sub- 
ject, while enforced as to another. All animals that 
breathe air, do it in the same way and for the same pur- 
pose. It is therefore a necessity that the physical mech- 
anism be built on the same principles at least, the elab- 
orateness of the structure being adjusted according to 
the requirements of the individuality, just as we find 
them. 

Because the opossum has a heart, and that heart cir- 
culates the blood in the opossum’s body the same as 
my heart circulates the blood in my body, must I take 
that fact as conclusive proof that the opossum is my 
grandfather, away back in the line of evolutionary pro- 
genitors ? 

If all forms of animal life were not, perforce, obliged 
to exist under the same natural laws on this earth, there 
would be no necessity of having all forms of animal 
life fitted up with the same machinery approximately. 
But, inasmuch as it pleased the Creator of the universe 
to enact the same laws to apply to all His creatures alike, 
it became necessary that He create all animals along the 
same lines, in order that all might perpetuate life. This 
demonstrates the unity of authorship, and gives the rea- 
son for the harmony in nature, Mr. Huxley to the con- 
trary, notwithstanding. 

But let us go a step farther. The same Creator brought 
forth the vegetable kingdom on very much the same plan 
that He did the animal kingdom. Now, why not say that 
because all trees have roots, bark, branches, leaves and 
wood fibre, therefore all trees sprang from the same 
primary form of vegetable life, held by some to have 
been the fern? The physiology of life in the tree, say 
the hickory, is the same as in the fern; therefore the 
progenitor of the hickory is the fern. They both are 
reproduced in the same manner; their embryonic life is 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 65 


very similar, therefore the hickory is a lineal descend- 
ant from the fern. 

Such reasoning is analogous to that of Mr. Huxley’s 
when he says: “It is only quite in the later stages of 
development that the young human being presents marked 
differences from the young ape. While the latter de- 
parts as much from the dog in its development as Man 
does. Startling as the assertion may appear to be, it 
is demonstrably true, and it alone appears to me suffi- 
cient to place beyond all doubt the unity of man with 
the rest of the animal world, and especially and more 
particularly and closely with the apes. Thus, identified 
in the physical process by which he originates, identical 
in the early stages of his formation, identical in the mode 
of nutrition, before and after birth, with the animals 
which lie immediately below him in the scale, Man, if 
his adult and perfect structure be compared with theirs, 
exhibits, as might be expected, a marvelous similarity 
of organization.” To supply the corollary, therefore 
Man must look for his progenitor in the animal king- 
dom, and in the personality of the ape. 

The premise, from which Mr. Huxley starts his rea- 
soning, is based on the assumption that because the ape 
and man are brought forth in the same manner, and 
their embryonic forms look alike to him, and the adult 
structures exhibit marvelous similarity to him, therefore 
they are alike. The assumption is not true and the pre- 
mise is a false one. They are not alike, even though they 
look alike to him. If they were alike they would de- 
velop into the same kind of being. The premise being 
a false one, the conclusion is necessarily erroneous, if the 
‘ reasoning is correct. But, on this assumption, why not 
reverse the process and say: The ape is a descendant 
of Man because the ape has all the essential vital organs 
that Man has! Why not go even a step farther and 
say: Inasmuch as all the lower animals have all the es- 
sential vital organs that Man has, as all are brought 
forth in the same manner, therefore all animals must. 
have sprung from the genus Homo by degeneration! In 
fact, the great naturalist, Saint Hilaire, first supposed 
such to be the case, and proposed to account for the dif- 


66 WHAT, IS MAN? 


ferent animals by saying that what we call species were 
degenerations from the same type. May not that “same 
type” have been Man? 

I submit that the reasoning is just as good in one 
case as it isin the other. There is no basis for the reason- 
ing in either case. At least it may be said both are 
fallacious, because the premises are false. Both are 
based on a false assumption, stimulated by a strong de- 
sire, yes, I may say determination, to substantiate a pet 
and impossible theory. The proof of the pudding is 
always in the eating. | 

It is believed by some that the life element in the ani- 
mal and vegetable kingdoms are similar, if not only dif- 
ferent manifestations of the same ego. Can anybody 
prove they are not? Then why should the two worlds 
pot observe the same laws of reproduction throughout, 
as they do in part? Does anybody believe that all species 
of trees sprang from the fern, or any one common pro- 
genitor? Everybody knows from experience that that 
is an impossibility; not any more so, however, than that 
all animal life should have sprung from a single pro- 
genitor. 

It has been conclusively shown, as we think, that ani- 
mals and Man have the same vital organs, not because 
of the evolution of the species, but because it is a neces- 
sity of nature, because they all exist under the same 
natural laws, and must be similarly equipped. 

It is likewise shown that the stress laid upon the 
similarity of organic construction, as a proof of evolu- 
tion, is a delusion and a snare. 

A recapitulation of the arguments in this chapter, per- 
haps, will show more clearly the baseless foundation on 
which the theory of evolution is placed. Special chap- 
ters will be devoted to the Osteology, Brain and Embry- 
ology, each. | 

Mr. Darwin says: “The strawberry began to improve 
just when the gardener began to be particular in the 
selection of the stock from which to raise the fruit.” We 
believe that statement is absolutely true. (Does not that 
admission utterly destroy his theory?) “Selection,” then, 
so far as the strawberry is concerned, had no existence 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 67 


until the gardener exercised it. We believe that is just 
as true as the other. Selection is an act of volition, and 
volition is one of the functions of the mind. Now is it 
not plain that “selection” does not exist in nature, be- 
cause nature has no mind? There is absolutely nothing 
to make the selection. It is a fiction, originated in the 
fertile brain of Mr. Darwin. To substantiate this view. 
if further proof is needed, you neglect those improved 
varieties of the strawberry, and see how quickly they 
will revert and go back to the original form, both in form 
and flavor of the fruit, and there pursue nature’s wonted 
course, proving that variation by reversion is quite as 
common as variation by improvement of the varieties. 
It shows also that the influence of selection was only 
manifested while it was being enforced by the gardener. 
Such is the rule in all domestics, whether animals or 
plants. In the wild state, as they came from the hands 
of the Creator, there is very little variation. Mr. Darwin 
says the same thing about the rock-pigeon. According 
to his tell this bird had not changed since its creation. 
And so it is in the case of the wild, female mallard duck, 
already cited. Now if this be true of these specimens of 
species, why is it not true of all species? 

But, for the sake of argument, let us grant that there 
may have been changes, some variations in the species 
of the mallard duck in the wild state, as it is claimed, 
because under domestication there are variations; and 
also grant that natural selection has had a hand in de- 
termining the survivors, because of its influence on the 
descendant in making it more fit in all its adaptations to 
possible new surroundings—more robust in body and 
- more astute in character, etc-——would all that prove 
that a new form could, would, or ever did split off from 
the mallard, to develop into a new genus? As in the cases 
cited of the sheep, the pigeon, and the strawberry, after 
all the variations that any man has ever witnessed, the 
mallard duck is the same now that it was in Egypt five 
thousand years ago. 

If it could be shown that any man had ever witnessed 
the evolution of a distinct genus, or even a different 
species, from that of the parent stock, that would be 


68 WHAT IS MAN? 


proof of what is now assumption only; it would then be 
a settled fact. Or if history recorded any such thing, or if 
the fossil remains showed any of the transitional forms, 
which must have numbered millions upon millions in the 
past, there would be a basis for what is now assumption, 
viz., that evolution guided by selection is a factor in the 
production of the species. But there is neither of these 
forms of proof forthcoming. And I beg you to rest as- 
sured that if it were possible to produce any such proofs, 
the advocates of the doctrine of evolution would hasten 
to produce them. They cannot produce an iota of 
proof; on the contrary, the leaders are conscious of the 
weakness of their position, the whole thing being a series 
of hypothecated structures, a continuous chain of assump- 
tions and inferences. Are those assumptions and in- 
ferences justifiable from any standpoint? If they are 
based on reason, then it is capable of demonstration, and 
needs not to rest on assumption. If such a condition of 
chaos in the animal world ever existed as would neces- 
sarily be produced by this host of intermediate, trans'- 
tional forms, why does it not exist to-day? If they do 
not exist to-day, what reason have we to believe that 
they ever did exist? No reason whatever. The history 
of the world for more than five thousand years records 
no such thing as the birth of a new genus by ordinary 
descent. No such thing as the transmutation of one 
genus into another genus. No such things have ever oc- 
curred since history began to be written. Dame Nature 
must have made a change in her laws and her modus 
operandi about the time or just before history began to be 
written, and which changes brought about order out of 
chaos in the animal kingdom. And since which time she 
has adhered strictly to the rule that every genus, and 
creature, for that matter, shall bring forth of its kind 
only. 

However, the evolutionists say the little time that his- 
tory covers is but as a grain of sand on the seashore to 
the eons of time of which we have not the history, only 
as recorded in the crust of the earth. The little written 
history we have is nothing to go by, as the time it covers 
is too short to be of any use in deciding the question. If 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 69 


evolution is the science of life on this earth, and dates 
from the first appearance of life on this globe, in fact, 
caused the first divergence after the spark of life had 
been accidentally lighted up in the monera, one hundred 
million years ago, it must have gathered a great impetus 
in that time. The product must have grown stronger 
and stronger with each change, and ought to be more 
apparent to-day than at any previous period. The great 
impetus gathered, with thousands of supply stations in 
the bodies of all the animals on the earth, could not be 
dissipated in an instant by nothing. And yet we are 
asked to believe that that same nothing enacted a new 
law in the place of the old one, changing entirely the 
modus operandi of nature! What is there in all nature 
to lead us to believe that there ever was a time when 
different laws stood in the place where, in nature, the 
present laws stand? (Such a question seems nonsensi- 
cal, and would not be asked except that it is made neces- 
sary by the evolution doctrine.) Not a single thing in 
all nature indicates such a thing, but the doctrine of 
evolution makes it necessary that just such has been the 
case, 

The whole structure of evolution is pure speculation, 
and of the wildest sort, without a scientific fact to back 
it up. A mixture of speculative philosophy and shreds 
of scientific tabulation, in regard to the structure of 
animals, misinterpreted or purposely taken out of their 
proper setting in nature, and twisted into fictitious, hy- 
pothecated structures to suit their fancy. 

The scientific naturalist has changed his avocation 
from that of collecting the facts of nature as they exist, 
to that of giving a reason for their existence. To do 
that he has originated a theory and assumed that the 
theory is a demonstrated fact; he then seeks to mold 
everything to suit his theory. In attempting to recon- 
struct the past, they have allowed the imagination to 
usurp the place of the record of facts, and have written 
in the spirit of the novelist, rather than in the spirit of 
the naturalist and philosopher. 

Theory is a good thing; some one has said that theory 
is the basis of all action. But before a theory can be 


70 WHAT, IS MAN? 


accepted as the expression of a fact or a truth, it has to 
be submitted to the crucible of test. And then if the 
result of the test substantiates the theory, it then becomes 
an established conclusion—it may be a fact or not. But 
if, on the other hand, the test does not substantiate the 
theory, but gives wholly different results from those 
which the theory justifies us in looking for, this theory 
must be abandoned, and a new one constructed which 
will conform to the facts as they stand. Suppositions 
must always give way to facts. The facts we must ac- 
cept whether or not they are in accord with our theory. 

In medicine, theory always goes before practice, un- 
less it be a wholly empiric practice, and if the results we 
get, by following the theory on which the practice is 
based, confirm the predictions that the theory has made, 
the theory may then be accepted as expressing a mode 
of procedure and possibly a truth. If, on the other 
hand, the results we get are wholly different from what 
the theory predicted, then the theory is considered to be 
overthrown, to be branded as wrong, and may be con- 
demned. Theory, per se, never cured anybody; but the 
tenets of a theory, having been put into the crucible of 
test, which is practice, may have cured thousands. So 
that theory has to be tried in this crucible of test before 
it is a reliable guide. 

Put the theory of evolution of the species through the 
crucible of test, and see if the results are what the theory 
predicted they would be. 

First. Taking an inventory of the results of one hun- 
dred million years (we are letting them have their own 
way as to time), during which time evolution is said to 
have been in operation, and in that time to have pro- 
duced the animal world as it is to-day, as claimed by 
evolutionists, we find, sure enough, that the animal world 
is here. Now comes the trouble. How did it come? 
Did evolution produce it? If it came by evolution, as 
enunciated by Mr. Darwin, viz., by ordinary descent, 
besides the well marked genera which characterize the 
animal world to-day there should be now, or there should 
have been at some time in the past, an “innumerable host 
of intermediate, transitional forms of life on this earth,” 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 71 


according to his own statement. Where is this host of 
intermediate, transitional forms of life? They are not 
here now, and geology says there never were any of those 
forms of life on this earth. But, on the contrary, geology 
demonstrates that there were well marked genera as 
far back as the Cambrian period. Now these are wholly 
different results from those predicted by the theory of 
evolution. Considering, then, that an essential part of 
the theory has failed to materialize, but rather contrary 
results have been obtained from those expected, the 
theory must be faulty, at least. 

Second. It being an undisputed fact that the animal 
world is characterized by well marked genera to-day, 
and that, if the animal world had been produced by or 
in accordance with the theory of evolution, there could 
have been no genera to begin with, and that there could 
be no such thing now as genera, but, instead thereof, 
there would be now, as well as in the past, a motley mass 
of nondescripts, consisting of all manner of forms of 
life to be imagined; all capable of amalgamation without 
reserve, and procreating a progeny of still more motley 
and grotesque personality and appearance, ad infinitum. 
Such being the case, evolution, according to the theory 
promulgated, could not have had anything to do with the 
production of the animal world. It would have been an 
entirely different world if it had been produced accord- 
ing to the formula of the theory of evolution, as an- 
nounced by Darwin. I will not stop to discuss, again, 
evolution from the standpoint of transmutation, as we 
have already disposed of that as being an impossibility. 
. (The evolution of Mr. Darwin is just impossible.) So 
far, then, the theory will not stand the test; the facts 
are all against it. 

Third. If there ever was a time in the past when the 
animal kingdom consisted of such a chaotic mass of in- 
termediate, transitional forms of life as the theory of 
evolution calls for, how could the order that now exists 
have been established? Inasmuch as there is no other 
power invoked or mentioned, save this one of evolution, 
that they declare produced the convergence, it must have 


72 WHAT IS MAN? 


worked both ways at once. Thus we arrive at the same 
conclusion as in the two previous indictments. 

Fourth. Since science has declared that evolution is 
“neither a controlling law nor a producing cause,” we are 
compelled to find that evolution is utterly impotent, can- 
not produce anything. Its function is merely and solely 
to describe the phenomenal order of things. The theory 
of evolution then, as having produced the animal world, 
is an entire misconception, a gigantic joke, a picturesque 
canard. It only represents Man trying his hand at crea- 
tion, and recording a dismal failure. 

Fifth. Allowing that there was an adequate causation 
acting when the animal world was brought forth, but 
which evolutionists ignore or deny, and that evolution 
was the modus operandi employed in the development of 
the species, why is it not operating now? When was the 
law of selection abrogated and the evolution stopped, and 
another law enacted in its place, binding the genera to 
reproduce of its kind only, at the same time making the 
genera incapable of amalgamation? But even that mild 
way of putting it contains an impossibility. If evolution 
was the modus operandi, it would then be a controlling 
Jaw, which science has declared it is not. So that evo- 
lution and selection can have no place whatever in the 
production of the species. Therefore the theory which 
tnakes evolution by selection account for the production 
of the animal world is not to be accepted, but condemned, 
because it has failed at every turn to prove itself. 

If the laws of procreation would allow of amalgama- 
tion of the genera, that would be a step in favor of mis- 
cellaneous development, and it might advance, or it might 
not; but it is not so, and, therefore, we have the genera 
to-day practically as they came from the hands of the 
Creator. 

From these five tests of the theory of evolution, not one 
substantiates the theory, but wholly different results were 
obtained from what the theory calls for, and what Mr. 
Darwin declares must have been, in order to comply 
with the necessities of his theory. Are they not fair and 
decisive tests? Are there any other tests that would sub- 
stantiate the theory? 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 73 


Evolution is in no sense a cause. Evolution plus se- 
lection is in no sense a cause. Evolution is one of the 
cogs in the wheel of dynamics and deals only with the 
changes as they occur, by recording the phenomenal 
order, after the efficient cause has acted. Evolution never 
caused anything, much less a complex, organic being. 

Take, for instance, the development of the oak from 
the acorn. The oak was latently, potentially, in the acorn, 
in all its varied possibilities. When the conditions were 
right, the oak began to develop from the acorn, not be- 
cause evolution caused the oak or forced it to develop, 
but the oak developed from the acorn by virtue of the 
vital principle deposited in the acorn; which vital prin- 
ciple was the endowment of the acorn by the parent tree 
from which the acorn fell. This endowment is the sole 
cause of the development of the oak, being stimulated 
by its environment. This endowment is perfect and 
binding. An acorn cannot produce a beech or a maple 
tree, because the vital principle contained in the acorn 
is that of the oak; and so, if the acorn ever germinates 
and develops to maturity, an oak will result, just as 
surely as it grows. Evolution, standing by, merely de- 
scribes the phenomenal order of the changes as they oc- 
cur while the oak is growing from the acorn to the 
stately oak. But evolution is not yet done with the oak. 
For centuries, perhaps, the stately oak will weather the 
storms, withstand all the vicissitudes of nature, luxuriate 
abundantly, but sooner or later decay will set in, and 
continue until the once stately oak has crumbled to dust 
and is no more. This is the process of rolling up the 
product of the life principle, while attended by the unroll- 
ing of nature. This is de-evolution or devolution. Evo- 
lution has now the work of describing the phenomenal 
order marking the changes that come by decay, as it did 
the changes that came by growth and accretion. Thus 
evolution is not only a witness of advancement, but just 
as much a witness of retrogression. 

In the writings of evolutionists, we see evolution used 
on one page as a cause, and on the next page, perhaps, 
as the effect. It is neither cause nor effect at any time. 

In the study of animate nature, we find four character- 


74 WHAT IS MAN? ia 


istics that mark the processes of changes in the organ- 
ism, viz., generation, development, death and decay. It 
is a cycle composed of these four quadrants, repeating 
itself in every animate integer—animal or vegetable. 

Generation, by the fusing of the two vital elements, the 
male and the female, into a vital principle, under suitable 
environment. 

Development, by the action of the vital principle on 
the nutrient elements of nature in appropriating to its 
use these elements, and with them constructing and re- 
pairing the tenement used for its indwelling. 

Death, by the vital principle ceasing to act in the tene- 
ment it has already built. 

Decay, by the dissolution of the body from the action 
of the elements, according to the laws of nature. 

Thus we see that this life force, vital force, life ele- 
ment, or physical entity, as it is variously called, is the 
only constructive force in nature. Where did it come 
from? All other forces of nature, per se, are destructive 
forces. 

This vital principle is similar in the animal and the 
vegetable kingdoms in that it causes life and develop- 
ment in each case. They may, as is claimed by some, 
be parts of the same ego. In each case it is perpetuated 
in the same manner, viz., by transmission from the parent 
to the progeny, through the endowment of the vital ele- 
ments of both the male and the female. Now the parent 
can transmit to its progeny only that which it has to trans- 
mit, viz., that which it received from its parents. And so 
on, back to the beginning. Every individuality trans- 
mits its own likeness to its progeny—no other. Not 
physical likeness, necessarily, but likeness in vital prin- 
ciple. Each genus has a life force peculiar to itself, and 
the life force of one genus cannot produce a specimen of 
another genus. Neither will the life elements of one 
genus fuse with the life elements of another genus. 

This is not speculation, but it is a statement of the 
actual facts in nature, that anybody can verify. This 
being an incontrovertible fact, it shows positively that 
there can be no such thing as transition by descent of 
one genus or species into another genus, no difference 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS 75 


how many or how few intermediate forms there may be 
held to be. Ergo, Darwinian evolution is an utter impos- 
sibility. 

In proof of the proposition that each genus has a vital 
principle peculiar to itself, permit this illustration. 

Here are a goose, a sheep and a cow, side by side, and 
all eating grass. The nutrient elements in the grass 
eaten by the goose are assimilated, and from them the 
glands in the skin of the goose grow feathers. The grass 
which the sheep eats is also digested and the nutrient 
elements assimilated, and from those nutrient elements 
the vital principle of the sheep causes the glands in the 
skin to grow wool. The cow goes through the same pro- 
cess of eating, digesting and assimilating the nutrient ele- 
ments of the grass, but the glands in the skin of the cow 
will grow neither feathers nor wool, but, instead thereof, 
they must grow hair. Here are three distinct and differ- 
ent products made from the same nutrient elements, sim- 
ply as a result of having been run through three separate 
machines; the difference must certainly be in the ma- 
chinery. And so the glands in the skin of the cow con- 
tinue to grow hair; the glands in the skin of the goose 
continue to grow feathers; and the sheep is covered with 
wool, just as they have done through all the ages; and 
all notwithstanding there have been numerous variations 
of each species, under domestication. Such has been the 
case since, by God’s fiat, the cow, the sheep, and the 
goose came into being. There may have been great im- 
provement in each, but let them alone for a few genera- 
tions and see them revett to their original type, as it is 
a well known fact that in in all domesticated species there 
is an inevitable tendency to revert to the original stock 
when left to themselves. 

If the theory of evolution were true, there ought not 
to be this tendency to reversion; but, on the contrary, 
when an advanced position has been reached, the type 
should be permanent, and reproduce the perfect speci- 
men. As according to the evolutionist’s dictum that “all 
organic beings tend to inevitable perfection of the or- 
ganism,” is it possible, then, that what we call an im- 


proved variety is in reality a degeneration ? 


76 WHAT IS MAN? 


It seems to be a law of nature that reversion should 
follow advancement. And this is in perfect consonance 
with all other laws, if our position regarding the life 
principle is correct. (See Embryology.) All variations 
that come to the individuality after its birth, or during 
the developmental stage, as from environment, which 
includes accidents, luxury, famine and pestilence, are 
not permanent in the variety or species, and so are not 
transmitted to the progeny, because they were not in- 
cluded in the endowment originally. The child was not 
born with them; they are additional and not inherent 
properties of the vital principle. So that, when the con- 
ditions are removed which produced the additional prop- 
erties, the original, inherent form is resumed. 

This is in strict accord with heredity. This being so, 
what becomes of those “few favored ones that shoot 
ahead of their fellows”? Would or could they inaugurate 
a new, advanced species? Not at all. 

These four stages follow each other in varieties of 
species, races of men, peoples, and nations. ‘They are 
born, they develop, they die, they disintegrate—a symbol- 
ical crumbling to dust. Ancient Egypt and Babylon were 
born, they developed luxuriantly and reveled in excesses, 
they died and crumbled to dust. The ancient Greeks and 
Athenians had their birth, their development, becoming 
the most scholastic civilization then known among the 
nations of the earth; they died and disintegrated, and 
are now only a remembrance of what they were. Rome 
also had its birth, developed exceedingly; it also died, 
and disintegration removed the debris. Many other 
nations, peoples, and races, which I need not mention, 
have passed through, or are now passing through, the 
same four stages attendant upon all organic forms. Of 
all the destructive forces that have had to do with the 
debauchery and ultimate death of men, races, peoples 
and nations, luxury stands at the head as a primary, 
causative factor. While a strenuous life is a blessing in 
disguise, luxurious revelry exhausts the vital forces by 
inducing and initiating habits of life which are incom- 
patible with sturdy development and long perpetuity. 
The exhausted vital principle is incapable of endowing 


ARGUMENTS OF EVOLUTIONISTS v9; 


the vital elements sufficiently to produce a potential vital 
principle in the progeny, and so they dwindle and wither 
away, die and are removed by disintegration, perchance 
to give place to a more virile vital principle. Now, evolu- 
tion had a hand in all this—but how? Metaphorically, 
it was the secretary who marked the phenomenal order 
of the generation, rise, fall and disintegration of each; 
but it was not a causative factor at any time. 

It is worth while to note, that in the animal kingdom 
luxury is not a factor; and so the membership avoid the 
bad effects of it. In the human species luxury reaches 
its climax in effect, and as it affects one member, it af- 
fects all under like circumstances. So that civic society, 
especially, is being honeycombed with debauchery of all 
kinds and degrees, on account of the luxuries indulged 
in, and the scramble, including fair means and foul, after 
the wherewith to buy it. This condition forebodes re- 
version, sooner or later, and removal by death and dis- 
integration, to give place to a newer and stronger vital 
principle, perhaps. Or, as in the cases of Babylon, Greece 
and Rome, the Anglo-Saxon race will be succeeded by 
a less progressive stock, which, in its turn, will have its 
generation, rise and fall, should the world continue to 
stand long enough. 

Just now the Anglo-Saxon race is at the helm of state, 
as it were, and it rests with them to steer toward a higher 
or a lower destiny. 

But some one will say: This sounds exactly like the 
doctrine of evolution, as presented by the evolutionists 
of to-day. Yes, it is an evolutionary process, but mark 
the difference. In the above evolutionary process, an 
efficient cause has acted to bring about the evolution, and 
evolution is marking the steps as they occur, while in 
the evolution of the species doctrine of Mr. Darwin and 
others, evolution is set up as the cause of the changes. 

From the foregoing it must be apparent that reversion 
is a constant attendant on all organic life, and seems to 
be a law of nature. From whence came the laws of 
nature? From the great First Cause, the Creator. Al- 
mighty God enacted them when he constituted the world 
and all that in it is. 


CHAPTER III 
OSTEOLOGY IN MAN AND MONKEY 


INASMUCH as the evolutionists have magnified the like- 
nesses in the skeletons of the ape and the human being, 
we will note something of the differences as well. We 
have already spoken of the likenesses and differences that 
exist in the essential vital organs of the lower animals 
and Man, and accounted for their likenesses and their 
divergences also. We will now confine our comparisons 
between Homo and Troglodytes. 

The similarities of the two are not denied, but the 
different interpretations of these likenesses put different 
meanings into them. ‘The interpretation that says “These 
likenesses constitute the proof that the two species are 
relatives; the one is the progenitor of the other,” is quite 
different from the interpretation that says “The like- 
nesses exist because the two species exist under the same 
natural laws; the homologous organs were made to per- 
form the same functions in the two or more species.” 
The laws under which the homologous organs perform 
life functions apply to each species exactly alike, there- 
fore it is a necessity that the construction of those 
homologous organs be similar, in order to simplify the 
controlling laws. The last interpretation then becomes a 
necessity; while, in the mind of the writer at least, the 
first interpretation is an erroneous one, wholly unwar- 
ranted. 

Prof. Huxley says: “Regarded systematically, the 
cerebral differences of Man and apes are not of more 
than generic value, his family distinction resting on his 
dentition, his pelvis and his lower limbs. Thus, what- 
ever system of organs be studied, the comparison of 
their modifications in the ape series leads to one and the 
same result—that the structural differences which sep- 
arate Man from the gorilla and the chimpanzee are not 

78 


OSTEOLOGY IN MAN AND MONKEY, 79 


so great as those which separate the gorilla from the 
lower apes.” 

It is almost inconceivable that a scientist, such as 
Prof. Huxley aspired to be, should make such a state- 
ment—his family distinction resting chiefly on his den- 
tition, his pelvis and his lower limbs. Is it really true 
that such are the only differences which Prof. Huxley 
can discover between Man and the gorilla? If it is true, 
he cannot be blamed for espousing the cause of evolu- 
tion. A mere tyro could spend an entire day in reciting 
the differences between the two eminent characters. 

But how can that statement be consistent with the fol- 
lowing statement made by the same author, Prof. Hux- 
ley? “But in enunciating this important truth I must 
guard myself against a form of misunderstanding which 
is very prevalent. I find, in fact, that those who en- 
deavor to teach what nature (?) so clearly shows us in 
the matter are liable to have their opinions misrepre- 
sented and their phraseology garbled, until they are sure 
to say that the structural differences between Man and 
even the highest apes are small and insignificant. Let 
me take this opportunity, then, of distinctly asserting, 
on the contrary, that they are great and significant; that 
every bone of a gorilla bears marks by which it might 
be distinguished from the corresponding bone of Man; 
and that, in the present creation at least, no intermediate 
link bridges over the gap between Homo and Troglodytes.” 

If the differences are so great and significant that 
every bone in the gorilla’s body bears marks by which 
it may be distinguished from the corresponding bone in 
Man’s body, there are certainly more differences between 
the two species than that of shape, viz., of the pelvis, the 
~ lower limbs, and the teeth. But, reader, I would have 
you remember that he is only speaking of the bones here 
which constitute only the most minor and unimportant 
differences between Homo and Troglodyies. ‘The bones 
alone do not constitute the personality of the gorilla, 
neither that of Man. Then why say that his family dis- 
tinction rests on dentition, his pelvis and his lower limbs? 

Possibly some one will say: In the first quotation, 
Prof. Huxley was speaking from a purely scientific 


80 WHAT IS MAN? 


standpoint. Well, if scientific attainments tend to de- 
throne or wipe out good sense and reason, it is better 
not to be so scientific. But is the statement true even 
from a scientific standpoint? 

If the differences are great and significant, what are 
they significant of? Mr. Huxley does not say, but I will. 
The differences are significant of the fact that the two 
species are no relation to each other, which they are not; 
that they belong to two entirely different genera; and 
that whatever likenesses there are, are necessities of con- 
struction and function in order that the same laws of 
nature may be applicable to each. 

The only way to account for the two conflicting state- 
ments is to presume that in the one instance, the first 
quotation, he was arguing his case at close contact, while 
in the other he was railing at criticism, and inadvertently 
contradicted himself, while telling the whole truth. 

Before anything is satd about the differences in the 
bones of the genus Homo and Troglodytes (and not 
much is needed to be said after the sweeping acknowl- 
edgment above quoted from Prof. Huxley), I wish to 
notice the last clause of the quotation, viz., “and that in 
the present creation at least, no intermediate link bridges 
over the gap between Homo and Troglodytes.”’ Now 
compare that with what Dr. Haeckel says on the same 
point, which I will quote. You will see by the comparison 
that the eminent men differ in their opinions. The one 
asserts very bluntly that no intermediate link bridges the 
chasm between Homo and Troglodytes, while the other 
asserts just as bluntly that the missing link has been 
found—the history of which I will give you from his 
own pen. The reader will have to determine for himself 
the meaning of this difference of opinion between two 
great leaders in thought, in what they call science, but 
which may more appropriately be called classified specu- 
lation than classified knowledge. For instance, in the 
first quotation from Prof. Huxley, the imagination is 
unbridled, and good sense is smothered into silence; 
mole-hills, in the way of incidents, are magnified into 
mountains of significance by their imagination lenses. 

It should first be stated that writers on evoltition as- 


OSTEOLOGY IN MAN AND MONKEY 81 


sume the right to interpolate a specimen, at any time when 
they need one to meet their requirements, just to suit 
their fancy. 

It was in 1866 that Dr. Haeckel completed his plans 
and specifications for the Pythecanthropus erectus, as an 
hypothetical being, to form the connecting link between 
Man and monkey. From that time until 1894, all eyes 
were turned, and all energies bent, to find the required 
link with which the monkey might legitimately call Man 
“Grandpa’s darling pet,” when Dr. Dubois unearthed the 
relic on the Island of Java, where the remains “rested 
upon a conglomerate, which lies upon a bed of marine 
marl of Pliocene age. 

“Together with the bones of the Pythecanthropus were 
found those of the Stegodon, Leptobos, Rhinoceros, Sus, 
Felis, Hyena, Hippopotamus, Tapirus, Elephas, and a 
gigantic Pangolin. Unfortunately, the fossil remains of 
this creature are very scanty—the skull-cap, a femur, and 
two teeth. It is obviously impossible to form from these 
scanty remains a complete and satisfactory reconstruc- 
tion of this remarkable Pliocene primate. The exhibit 
of these bones caused an animated discussion at the third 
International Zoological Congress at Leyden. There 
were a great many opinions pro and con. The teeth are 
like those of Man. The femur also is very human, but 
shows some resemblance to the gibbon’s. The skull- 
cap is also very human, but with prominent eyebrow 
ridges. It has a cranial capacity of 1000 cubic centi- 
meters, that is to say, much more than that of the largest 
ape, which has not more than 600 cubic centimeters. 
The bones indicated an animal that stood not less than 
‘five feet six inches high. The eminent naturalists could 
not agree as to what animal they represented. Prof. 
Virchow maintained that the skull was that of an ape, 
while the thigh belonged to man. He explained that 
certain exostoses or growths observable on the thigh 
proved its human nature, since only under careful treat- 
ment the patient could have healed the original injury, 
presumably a fracture. And as a last decisive argu- 
ment, the Berlin pathologist declared that the deep con- 
striction behind the upper margin of the orbits proved 


82 WHAT IS MAN? 


that the skull was that of an ape, as such never occurred 
in man. But, as they could not agree, the congress ap- 
pointed twelve men, experts, to sit as a jury to settle 
the question. Of these twelve, three held that the fos- 
sil remains belonged to a low race of Man, three de- 
clared them to be those of a man-like ape of large size, 
while the other six maintained that they belonged to an 
intermediate form, which directly connected primitive 
Man with the anthropoid apes. This last view is the 
right one, and accords with the laws of logical inference. 
He is indeed the long searched for ‘missing link,’ for 
which I, myself, in 1866, proposed the hypothetical genus 
Pythecanthropus erectus, species Alalus.” 

Dr. Haeckel appears to be happy. He has at last got 
the fellow for which he made out the plans and speci- 
fications away back in 1866. Such is the evidence as 
given by Dr. Haeckel himself, and upon which he bases 
the claim that the missing link has been found. Certain- 
ly such evidence would not convince an unbiased, un- 
prejudiced mind. It did not convince even Prof. Hux- 
ley. There are too many possible loop-holes, too much 
room for knavery, especially, since in all the history of 
the world fossil remains should produce only these mere 
fragments of a skeleton, since there must have been mil- 
lions, if any, intermediate Pythecanthropii. When we 
stop to think that this one fragmentary specimen is the 
only intermediate form that has ever even been pretended 
to have been produced at any time or place, it suggests 
strongly that the venerable Prof. Virchow was right in 
his opinion. To say the very best that can be said of it, 
the case stands on very poor support. Especially is this 
so when it is remembered that the jury disagreed; they 
have no verdict; the case is not settled yet. Possibly 
Prof. Huxley was one of the experts who hung the jury 
and caused the disagreement. At least, he denies abso- 
lutely that any missing link has been found. But a 
really strange incident has here occurred. Why should 
a scientist who does not believe in any intermediate forms, 
but depends entirely on transmutation for his new, 
higher species, now invoke the aid of this intermediate 
form in the individuality of the Pythecanthropus erectus? 





gu 
ZA 36g 
7 


G) 









Co 
aks i ZE 
iy Eg 
t p | emi) i) —— Nex 

2 hy qn lr 
aN fe 


Real 
Ss 
yy 
ie : 
—; EAS 


a evi) 
NR 
ee 






Uf 
yen 2, GA 
ips" 








(The Gibbon is twice the proportionate size ). 





OSTEOLOGY IN MAN AND MONKEY 83 


The cut of the skeletons of the higher apes, the gibbon, 
orang, chimpanzee and gorilla, and the skeleton of Man, 
will show the likenesses and the differences in the bony 
framework of the several species better than I can de- 
scribe them in words. We see that the bones are very 
similar in each of the species, yet we are told that each 
bone of each animal bears marks by which it may be 
told to which species it belongs. The general poise of 
the body shows plainly that Man was created to stand 
in the erect position. The poise of the head on the 
spinal column, it being farther toward the front of the 
occipital bone, shows the same thing, even making it 
necessary. The difference in the shape of the pelvis 
also proves this. The difference in the length of the 
arms shows that Man was not intended to use his arms 
and hands to walk upon, as were the apes. The posi- 
tion of the great toes in Man shows that the feet were 
organs made for locomotion, and not for hanging to a 
limb in a tree like an ape, by opposing the other toes. 
The muscular attachment and the muscle that gives lev- 
erage to the great toe in Man are wholly wanting in the 
ape’s foot, but are to be found in the front foot or hand 
of the ape, with insertion by three tendons instead of 
one, in the three middle toes. This mechanism gives the 
ape extra strength in the front foot, so as to enable him 
to climb trees and sport in the branches. Do you really 
think selection, or the struggle for life, or the survival 
of the fittest, assisted by the changes of any number of 
years, could transfer that muscle from the front foot 
of the ape to the foot of Man? Incredible. And vet, 
if that same nothing can make a lung out of the swim- 
bladder of a fish, this feat would be easy. 

_ The great toe in the ape is opposing, like the thumb 
of Man’s hand, and similar to the hind foot of the opos- 
sum, to enable the ape to clutch and cling to a limb. The 
cavity of the skull in Man is more than twice as large 
as that of the ape, Man’s nearest approach. What, think 
you, gave the impetus for the enlargement of Man’s 
cranial cavity over that of the monkey? Was it neces- 
sity, because Man had accidentally contracted the habit 


84 WHAT IS MAN? 


of talking, and because of this found his brain growing, 
so that the skull had to be enlarged to accommodate the 
growing brain? Or was Man’s brain created approxi- 
mately as large as itis now? (See Chapter IV.) Man’s 
jaws do not protrude like the ape’s. Of course both 
species have teeth. I wonder why that is so? This 
being a fact, it is positive proof, not that both species 
have to masticate food, but that they are related to each 
other. That very thing constitutes positive proof that 
the anthropoid ape is the progenitor of Man, does it not? 
They say yes. And then again, in proof of that proposi- 
tion, Prof. Huxley says there is one species of the ape 
that has the same number of teeth that Man has, all the 
rest having from four to six more. 

The skin of the ape is covered with hair, while the 
skin of Man is not. (See Darwin’s account of how 
Man’s body became divested of hair, Chapter VI.) 

The whole make-up of Man’s bony framework shows 
plainly that Man was made to dwell upon the ground, 
while the whole make-up of the ape’s frame shows that 
it was created for an arboreal life. The ape’s specialty 
is not walking upon the ground, but that of climbing 
trees and sporting among the branches. 

Personally, I put little store in either the likenesses 
or the differences in the skeleton of the ape to that of 
Man. Neither the likenesses nor the differences prove 
anything farther than that they are similar or dissimilar. 
While the monkey has essentially the same framework 
that Man has, it does not follow that they are related 
in any way. If the skeleton of the ape was exactly like 
the skeleton of Man, even that would not convince me 
that the ape was the progenitor of Man, or that it was 
and is a relative of Man. Common sense tells us that 
the framework, consisting of bones, was and is a neces- 
sity to each species, to enable them to move their bodies 
and to fulfill their respective destinies. Without the 
bony framework there could be no motion of the bodies. 
The principle of the lever and the fulcrum is evidently 
the one adopted by the Creator, as the best and only 
principle of construction adequate and desirable for the 
voluntary production of motion in the animal body. 


OSTEOLOGY IN MAN AND MONKEY 85 


“He saw that it was good,” and, with a few alterations, 
He made Man on the same physical principles that He 
had previously made the animal world, because Man 
had to exist under the same natural laws with the ani- 
mal world, and it would take the same, or similar ma- 
chinery, to do the same thing in each species. Biblical 
history distinctly states that Man was created the last 
of all creatures, and that finding corresponds with the 
findings of geology. The essential difference between 
the ape and Man lies not in the physical body, but in the 
personality and the vital principle that vivifies the body 
of each species. The vital principle that determines and 
builds an ape’s body cannot determine and build a Man’s 
body; not at all. Neither can the vital principle that 
determines and builds a Man’s body determine and build 
an ape’s body. The vital elements of Man will not fuse 
with the vital elements, male or female, of the ape; 
which fact proves, yes, demonstrates beyond the possi- 
bility of doubt or quibbling, more effectually than all 
the arguments that can be produced, that Man and ape 
are now, and always were, from entirely different genera ; 
they are no relatives to each other. One species cannot 
produce the other species; they cannot even amalgamate 
with each other ; and, therefore, the ape cannot, under any 
circumstances whatsoever, be the progenitor of Man. 
If it ever was done, it can be done again. The same 
laws that were in operation when Man first made his 
sudden advent here govern the universe now, and there- 
fore reproduction. Geology demonstrates that the ad- 
vent of Man was sudden, as with all the different species. 
There were no forerunners, in the shape of intermediate, 
_transitional forms, to any of the species. Each genera 
was an entire new deal. This being the case, we have 
every reason to believe that there never was a Pythe- 
canthropus erectus, species Alalus, on the face of the 
earth, only as it existed in the mind of Dr. Haeckel. It 
is plain, from what Prof. Huxley says, that he thought 
the same thing. But there are some people who prefer, 
apparently, to believe that their progenitor was an ape, 
rather than believe that God created them in His own 
image by a special act or fiat. The writer does not. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY COMPARED BY 
ANATOMISTS 


THE question of the likeness of the brain of Man to 
that of the orang-utan or the chimpanzee is a very in- 
teresting one, and has engaged the attention of naturalists 
and anatomists for a generation or more. Many and 
repeated examinations of the brains of each species have 
been made for the special purpose of comparison. I 
have not the disposition nor the ability to enter into a 
discussion of all the minutiz of the likenesses and the 
differences in the brains of apes and men, because 
I have not made the necessary dissections to enable me 
to speak authoritatively from personal knowledge; but 
I will make a few quotations, on each side of the ques- 
tion, from the various disputants’ writings, which will 
give the present status of the very interesting question 
we are considering. 

Prof. Huxley says: “So far as the cerebral structure 
goes” [Please to mark that], “it is clear that Man dif- 
fers less from the orang and the chimpanzee than they 
do even from the monkeys, and that the difference be- 
tween the brain of the chimpanzee and Man is almost 
insignificant when compared with that between the chim- 
panzee’s brain and that of the lemur.” Prof. Bischoff 
remarks with reference to the above quotation, after re- 
peated examinations of the brains of the several species: 
“If we successively compare the brain of Man with that 
of the orang, the brain of this with that of the chim- 
panzee, of this with that of the gorilla, and so on of a 
Hylobate’s, Semnopythecus’, Cynocephalus’, Ceropythe- 
cus, Macacus’, Cebus’, Callithrix’, Lemur’s, Stenops, 
Hapale’s, we shall not meet with a greater, or even as 

86 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 87 


great a breach in the degree of development of the con- 
volutions, as we find between the brain of man and that 
of an orang-utan or chimpanzee.” 

Here is a flat contradiction on a demonstrable ques- 
tion. However, there is a loop-hole in Prof. Huxley’s 
assertion, which may serve to reconcile the differences 
in the statements. Prof. Huxley’s statement is incom- 
plete ; it is only a partial representation of the point under 
consideration. He says, “so far as the cerebral struc- 
ture goes,’ which apparently means to consider all the 
brain of the orang-utan and the chimpanzee, but only 
that part of the brain of Man that compares with that 
of the orang and the chimpanzee. The statement of 
Prof. Bischoff covers the development of the convolu- 
tions of the whole brains of each species. There is no 
loop-hole in his statement where he says: “If we com- 
pare the brain of Man with that of the orang, the brain 
of the chimpanzee,” etc. Not a part of the brain of 
one with the whole brain of the other, but the whole 
brain of each species with that of the other. The weight 
of evidence is decidedly in favor of Prof. Bischoff being 
right, as he was an eminent comparative anatomist, 
of world-wide reputation, having spent a lifetime in the 
study ; whereas Prof. Huxley was comparatively a novice 
in comparative anatomy, and had never made a dissection 
of the brains of the orang-utan and the chimpanzee until 
he began to study and develop the theory of evolution in 
that particular line, while occupying the chair of natural 
history in the Royal School of Mines, as he says himself. 
And, again, because Prof. Huxley is the only man that 
ever said the brain of the orang is more like the brain of 
’ Man than it is like the brain of a monkey, even “as far 
as it goes,” perhaps his zeal for evolution, as in the case 
before cited, had as much weight with him in making 
the assertion as the inspection of the brain of the orang. 

Prof. Huxley admits that “the Man’s cerebral hemi- 
spheres are absolutely and relatively larger than those 
of the orang and the chimpanzee; that his frontal lobes 
are less excavated by the upward protusion of the roof 
of the orbits; that the gyri and sulci are, as a general 
rule, less symmetrically disposed, and present a greater 


88 WHAT IS MAN? 


number of secondary plications.” He admits further 
that ‘as a rule in Man the temporo-occipital or external 
perpendicular fissure, which is usually so strongly marked 
a feature of the ape’s brain, is but faintly marked.” How 
does this quotation comport with the first? 

Gratiolet has pointed out that “there is a fundamental 
difference in the development of the brains of apes and 
of Man, consisting in this—that in the ape’s, the sulci 
which first make their appearance are situated on the 
posterior region of the cerebral hemispheres, while in 
the human fcetus, the sulci first become visible on the 
frontal lobes.” 

It has also been pointed out that there is a fundamental 
difference in the fully developed brains of the orang and 
the chimpanzee to that of Man, in that “in the ape’s 
brain the cerebrum is not developed back so as to cover 
the cerebellum, and that the frontal lobes are larger and 
not excavated by the roof of the orbits in Man as it is 
in the orang and chimpanzee. They are called ‘short- 
hemisphered brains,’ so that when the skull-cap is lifted 
off, the cerebellum is plainly visible. In Man, the cere- 
brum extends backward so as to cover completely over 
the cerebellum.” 

As this part of the brain is the seat of all the nobler 
faculties which characterize Man, at least from a phreno- 
logical point of view, and as well determined by “cere- 
bral localization,” where are located the organs of self- 
esteem, love of approbation, cautiousness, benevolence, 
veneration, firmness, conscientiousness, hope, wonder, 
and ideality, certainly there is a fundamental difference 
between the brain of Man and that of the orang or the 
chimpanzee. All these characteristic organs, and there- 
fore traits of character as expressed by them, are lack- 
ing in the brain of the orang and the chimpanzee. Cut 
out of Man’s nature all of these noble characteristics and 
he would indeed be a sorry specimen of a man. How 
did Man come by this additional brain matter if his pro- 
genitor is the orang or chimpanzee? 

Evidently Mr. Darwin does not believe in phrenology 
or cerebral localization; neither does he believe that the 
additional size of the brain of Man, over that of the 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 89 


orang or chimpanzee, would account for the higher facul- 
ties, the moral qualities of Man’s make-up. He says: 
“The development of the moral qualities in Man has its 
foundation in the social instincts and family ties. These 
instincts are highly complex, but the more important 
elements of love and the distinct emotion of sympathy, 
as they are highly beneficial to the species, have in 
all probability been acquired through natural selection.” 
Thus he assumes to account for two of the noblest quali- 
ties of the human mind on the basis of synthetic mechan- 
ism,.or synthesis and mechanism. Just think of an emo- 
tion, which is a distinct function of the mind, and in- 
duced primarily by an action of the brain, being acquired 
by a mechanical process—natural selection! The little 
child, seeing its mother distressed and crying, cries in 
sympathy with her, by virtue of natural selection! Is not 
that the climax of absurdity? If that is the case, Man 
deserves no credit for the exercise of either of those 
qualities of mind, love or sympathy; but, on the other 
hand, whether he shows love or hatred, sympathy or 
revenge, he had to act as he did. He had no choice in 
the matter, he was impelled by this so-called law of 
nature. He could not, then, have acted differently than 
he did, because these qualities of mind were selected for 
him, not by him. He had no free will, no free moral 
agency. 

Apply this doctrine to humanity at large. There is 
no such thing as crime; no such thing as wrong-doing. 
All punishment, under the guise of statutory law, is an 
outrage on the individuality so punished. Logically, 
’ there can be no laws. This is fatalism, pure and simple. 
Anarchy, then, is the highest form of society, and the 
only justifiable condition of society. All laws and all 
courts are simply means set up by the rulers to rob all 
the rest of society of their rights. Does any good citi- 
zen believe in anarchy? Such is the only logical deduc- 
tion to be drawn from the premises set up. 

This is the nearest approach he has made at connecting 
the material world with the immaterial world by his 
formula. Is it reasonable? Is it true? It is a lamen- 


90 WHAT IS MAN? 


table fact that some people act on that theory, whether 
they believe it or not; but who are they? 

Do social instincts and practices tend to stimulate the 
moral qualities in Man? The history of the world says 
no. On the contrary, they tend to stimulate immorality. 
It is only in the abstraction of the human mind, the 
getting away from self by meditation, or the influence 
of a moral mind and teaching, that gives an uplift to the 
moral nature. 

All animals have brains sufficient for their station in 
life; some more than others. The brain of the ant, said 
to be one-quarter the size of the smallest pinhead, is 
also said to be the most wonderful thing in the world in 
its structure. Yet this miniature brain is the seat of 
an intellect, or an instinct, that is marvelous. There are 
several species of the ant, and though some are incapable 
of even feeding themselves or their larve, or making 
their own nests, they are most expert and industrious 
in capturing and making slaves of another species of 
ant, while, at the same time, they are absolutely depend- 
ent on those slaves for their lives. At times of revolt 
of the slaves, which frequently occurs, they marshal 
their armies, establish their outposts, set their guards, 
and systematically attack and subdue the rebellious or 
revolting slaves. They have commanding generals, and 
several grades of sub-officers, and move with the pre- 
cision of a trained army of men. From whence comes 
their astute character? Is natural selection capable of 
explaining it? 

All animals are called upon to use their brains and 
their senses in the same way that Man is, according to 
the necessities of the case. It is the same intelligence, 
as far as it goes, that Man uses, each one according to 
his requirements. There is but one intelligence on this 
mundane sphere, and all brains are so constructed as to 
make use of that one intelligence, according as it may 
be necessary to meet the requirements of each individ- 
uality. The automatic brain in the animal performs the 
same functions in the animal that the same brain does 
in Man, and these automatic brains, therefore, are more 
nearly alike than the brain which evolves mind, the 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY QI 


cerebri; however, some animals have this brain more 
elaborate in arrangement and detail than others. 

The human being has more brains than the animal 
has. The structure is larger, and has more apartments 
in it than has the animal brain. Practically all the men- 
tal faculties which are characteristic of Man are repre- 
sented by additional brain substance, over and above what 
the brute has. That part of the brain in the brute is 
very primitive, and what it has gives rise to, or evolves, 
instinct, and not mentality. This is where Prof. Hux- 
ley fortifies himself with the phrase “as far as it goes”; 
but even here he is wrong, else we have to admit that 
the dog reasons. Now, is it reason or instinct, in the 
bird-dog, that makes it “point” when it scents game? 

The prime question is, how did Man come by this ad- 
ditional and more perfect brain substance, over and above 
what the brutes have, even allowing the animal brain, 
“as far as it goes,” to be identical? Darwin would say, 
by evolution guided by selection; Haeckel and Spencer 
would say, by transmutation; and Prof. Huxley would 
say, in any old way. 

Now, the same arguments adduced heretofore in these 
pages are applicable here, and need not be repeated. 
They show that this theory of evolution, or evolution 
plus selection, is utterly impotent to produce anything, 
and so could not have produced the extra brain matter 
in Man. 

If the animal is to use the brain to perform the same 
functions even as far as they go, as Man does, why 
should not the brains be alike, in so far as they include 
the same functions? All are built for the same purpose 
‘ and operate under the same natural laws. Nature is 
never prodigal, never wasteful, but always conserves her 
forces. 

It is a fact that all animals have the same essential 
vital organs that Man has, so far as the physical system 
is concerned; and also that those vital organs perform 
relatively the same functions in each. It is very reason- 
able, therefore, that each should be supplied with the 
same, or at least a similar, motor force or power; the 
strength of the batteries being graduated according to 


92 WHAT IS MAN? 


the necessities of the case; but all being dependent upon 
a similar kind of motor power to run the batteries, which 
is the vital principle of each individuality in every case. 
It then becomes a necessity that the mechanism be similar, 
where similar ends are to be reached. 

It is the interpretation that is to be put on these like- 
nesses that we are now discussing, and not the admitted 
fact that there are likenesses existing in the organisms 
of Man and the lower animals. The proposition of evo- 
lution doctrine is that because the lower animals have 
all the essential vital organs that Man has, therefore 
Man is related to the lower animals. Yes, they go far- 
ther than that and say, because Man has all the essen- 
tial vital organs that the lower animals have, Man must 
look for his progenitor among the lower animals. Is 
the deduction justifiable? We say no! 

To illustrate: I have before me three silver dol- 
lars. They are all the same size, all the same thickness; 
all are milled alike around the edge; they are as much 
alike on the obverse side as on the reverse side; indeed, 
whichever way you look at them, they look alike; and, 
more than that, they were all issued by the same author- 
ity. Now, is all that to constitute unmistakable proof 
that all were coined at the same mint? I will admit that 
it may be so construed by some people, but that will not 
alter the facts in the case; and, what is more, all would 
not so construe the evidence. There is a mark on each 
one of the dollars that is positive proof that they were 
not all coined at the same mint; but, on the contrary, it 
shows that one was coined at Philadelphia, one at New 
Orleans, and one at San Francisco. I might further il- 
lustrate by a hundred machines of similar pattern. The 
mere likeness does not decide the question at all. Some 
one will say, what does decide the question? I answer, 
the mark on each coin; the individuality of each ma- 
chine. This individuality shows that it was constructed 
by an individuality in the brain of the builder. The 
vital energy and the mechanical genius in the inventor 
produced the machine; and laws, human laws, prevent 
infringement. Just so it is in the animal kingdom; the 
mark there is the constructive force, the vital principle, in 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 93 


each species; and Divine law prevents amalgamation or 
mixing of the genera. One genus cannot produce a 
specimen of another genus, no matter how much he may 
chance to “shoot ahead of his fellows” in development. 
Fach one has stamped upon his body the initial of the 
mint in which he was coined, and though they may look 
alike and perform the same functions exactly alike, they 
are not alike in genera; they are no relatives to each 
other, but entirely different and distinct. Therefore the 
deduction referred to is not justifiable, because the one 
could not produce the other. So that the interpretation 
making the gorilla or the chimpanzee the progenitor of 
Man, simply because the gorilla or the chimpanzee has 
the same vital organs, is gratuitous as well as erroneous. 
The reason for the likeness is that they are used for the 
same relative purposes in the different species. The like- 
nesses in the vital organs in two species offer no reason 
to believe that the one can produce the other. The vital 
principle of the ass cannot construct a horse. The vital 
element of the ass and the vital element of the horse will 
fuse and produce a creature that does not resemble either 
an ass or a horse. This creature is barren, because it 
has no laboratory in which to construct a vital element, 
or that the gates of ingress are closed. It is a hybrid, 
so-called, but not strictly. So that a mule cannot trans- 
mit a vital element; therefore a mule has no progeny. 
Now, reasoning by analogy, such would be now, or would 
have been in the past, the case in every instance of the 
intermediates produced by the evolution theory. They 
might be able to take just one step, but that is all. 
However, so rigid is the law against amalgamation of 
' the species that there are only a few possible exceptions 
to the rule, seemingly, though they are not real excep- 
tions. Those seeming exceptions occur in cases of dif- 
ferent species of the same genus, but which have been 
considered by some to be distinct genera; but fertility 
is now considered the supreme test of genera. From 
this, also, we have positive proof that the evolution 
theory is wrong, radically wrong, and cannot stand, but 
must be abandoned. 

There can be no doubt that the Creator could have 


94 WHAT IS MAN? 


constructed each separate genus on a different plan from 
that of all others if it had pleased Him to do so; but it 
must be very evident that if He had done so there would 
not be, there could not have been, the unity and, there- 
fore, the harmony in the universe of nature that there 
is now; but, instead, vast complications of what we call 
nature would have been a necessity, in order that each 
species should have suitable environment. The interpre- 
tation of this unity of design in the physical systems of 
the species is far from a confirmation of the theory of 
evolution. But this unity of design demonstrates the 
unity of authorship and purpose, and simplifies the laws 
of nature to a unity, instead of vast complications. 

The brain of Man is a decided enlargement and im- 
provement on the brain of the orang or the chimpanzee, 
Man having on an average 48 to 50 ounces of brain 
matter, while the orang or chimpanzee has only 18 to 
20 ounces. Now, what great power or what controlling 
influence gave the impetus to this enlargement and im- 
provement, and at the same time changed the entire sys- 
tem of the individuality of the orang or chimpanzee to 
that individuality of Man? ‘The evolutionist says: Evo- 
lution, urged on by “selection”; or evolution, urged on 
by “the survival of the fittest”; or evolution, urged on by 
‘the struggle for life,” according to which wing of the 
nondescript he is under. 

What intelligence guided the architecture, and pointed 
out the way to the fulfilment of the decree? This calls 
for the same answer. Let us see. 

The cell is the unit in all organic and structural tis- 
sues. This unit is said to be endowed by nature (?) 
when vitalized by the vital principle, which flows to it 
along the course of the efferent nerves, with the power 
to reproduce itself, when its work is done. The new 
cell thus born is to be identical with the parent cell, if 
the circumstances attendant are the same. Otherwise the 
individuality could not be maintained at all. Now, if 
that is true, how could evolution, goaded to action by 
selection, or any other adjunct, build an addition to the 
old? Or institute a new organ in the brain or anywhere 
else in the system? Even provided that evolution, aided 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 95 


by selection, or its equivalent, were virile powers, and 
not utterly impotent fancies, as they have been shown to 
be. The endowment of the cell is binding, and never 
has been known to be violated. Bear in mind that it is 
the vital principle living in or occupying the organism, 
that builds and fashions, and gives to it its individuality, 
and not the organism that determines the vital principle. 
Here, again, evolution is stranded. It cannot escape 
destruction, even after granting an impossible proviso. 
Not I but science declares absolutely that evolution is 
wholly impotent, either as a controlling law or as a pro- 
ducing cause. Evolution is entirely inadequate to ac- 
count for new organisms or new types, because it is 
impotent. Selection, made and enforced by a person- 
ality, as, for instance, the gardener, under domestication, 
has induced new varieties of the same species; but those 
varieties are not permanent. And, above all, it must be 
remembered that they have not changed the genera. The 
changes and variations have all been confined to boun- 
daries already set, in the constitution of the original 
specimen of the species, whether animal or vegetable. 

There is every reason to believe that the first repre- 
sentative of the genus Homo had just as perfect a brain 
as the genus now has. He came suddenly upon the 
scene, He had no precursors in the way of an inter- 
mediate between himself and the orang or the chim- 
panzee. There could have been none, as we have re- 
peatedly and conclusively shown. Man was made Man 
from the beginning; he did not grow by chance from the 
ourang or the chimpanzee. No power but a creative 
power, the Creator of the universe, could know enough 
~ or have the ability to perform the act of the enlargement 
and improvement of the structure of the brain of Man 
over and above that of the orang or the chimpanzee, and 
adjust so perfectly the brain of each individuality to its 
uses. Did He make over a monkey into a Man? In- 
deed, it seems silly and superfluous to ask such a ques- 
tion, but it is made necessary by reason of the doctrine 
of evolution. The advocates of that doctrine do not 
acknowledge that there is such a thing as a Creator of 
the universe, 


96 WHAT IS MAN? 


There is no architectural ability, de novo, in “blind 
nature.”’ Everything it reproduces are copies of what 
has been; it cannot be otherwise. The original commis- 
sion holds it rigidly in line. The vital elements of Man, 
male and -female, when fused, reproduce Man. The 
vital principle of the horse reproduces a horse, and can 
produce nothing else; and so on through the list. 

Mr. Darwin defines “nature” to be “only the aggre- 
gate action and product of many natural laws’; and 
laws, “‘the sequence of events as ascertained by us.” 

This indefinite, incomprehensible, intangible something, 
then, is the only attendant guide, aided and abetted by 
Mr. Darwin’s specialty of nature, “selection,” that super- 
vised the initiation of, and the enforcement of, the decree 
that made possible the enlargement and improvement of 
the brain of Man over that of the orang or the chim- 
panzee, so as to include all the nobler qualities of mind 
and attributes of humanity. If such is the case, is it 
any wonder that Man is a weak vessel? 

But Mr. Darwin, apparently not satisfied with this 
solution of the problem (for this I cannot blame him), 
offers another theory of solution. He says: “Great 
strides in the development of intelligence will have fol- 
lowed, as soon as the half-art and half-instinct of lan- 
guage came into use; for the continued use of language 
will have reacted on the brain and reproduced an in- 
herited effect; and this will again have reacted on the 
improvement of the language. The largeness of the 
brain in Man, relative to his body, compared to the lower 
animals, may be attributed, in chief part, to the early use 
of some form of language. Without the use of some 
language, however imperfect, it appears doubtful whether 
Man’s intelligence could have risen to the standard im- 
plied by his dominant position at an early period. From 
the fundamental difference between certain languages, 
some philologists have inferred that when Man first be- 
came widely diffused, he was not a speaking animal; but 
it may be suspected that languages, far less perfect than 
any now spoken, aided by gestures, might have been 
used, and yet have left no traces on subsequent and more 
highly developed tongues.” 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 97 


As ingenious as this theory is, it does not help him 
out of his unsatisfactory condition, but only helps to 
engulf him. 

Several philologists, especially Prof. Max Miiller, have 
lately insisted that “the use of language implies the 
power of forming general concepts; and that as no ani- 
mals are supposed to possess this power, an impassable 
barrier is formed between them and Man.” Mr. Darwin 
gets the cart before the horse in his eagerness to work 
out his theory. Intellect must have been the all-impor- 
tant necessity to the early man to enable him to invent 
and use any language, especially an articulate language. 
The idea of language is in itself a distinct concept; and 
the further idea that ideas and thoughts may be conveyed 
to others by the use of language is a very great concept. 
We cannot comprehend the greatness of it, when it is 
remembered and considered that up to the time of the 
invention of language, no thoughts or ideas had ever 
been conveyed to others; there was no such thing on this 
earth. We now think the inventions of Thomas A. 
Edison are great masterpieces of achievement, and so 
they are, but they are not to be compared with the in- 
vention of articulate language and its use. Without 
doubt, Man had to have intelligence to invent language; 
the invention did not produce the intelligence. Of course 
the use of language enabled men to communicate intelli- 
gence to each other, and undoubtedly the use of language 
helped to perfect the invention, by making it more volu- 
minous and useful. Philology shows it to be a slow pro- 
cess and that language is being elaborated to this day. 

Mr. Darwin goes through a long and very ingenious 
- argument to show that the mind of all animals, “so far 
as it goes,” is identically the same thing as in Man. All 
the difference, apparently, is “quantity,” primarily, and 
“quality,” secondarily; and the last quality was owing 
entirely to improvement by “natural selection.” He ar- 
gues that because animals are possessed of intelligence to 
even a limited extent, and the same intelligence, only in 
a lesser degree, it is evident that Man’s progenitor is to 
be found among the lower animals. You might as well 
say because hogs eat corn, and chickens eat corn also, 


98 WHAT IS MAN? 


therefore the hog is the progenitor of the chicken, or 
vice versa. 

It is true that animals use the same intelligence, limit- 
edly, that Man uses; but the reason for this is not that 
the two species are related in any way, but because there 
is but one intelligence on this earth, and that is God’s 
intelligence. 

The theory of evolution teaches that all the difference 
there is between the animal’s brain and that of Man lies 
in the quantity first and quality second. The quality is 
all due to the action of selection, self-administered; and 
as the quality improved from use, the quantity increased 
gradually to its present size. There is in reality no dif- 
ference between the brain of the monkey and that of 
Man, only that Man, from some cause, contracted the 
habit of talking, away back in his early history, and that 
habit enlarged the brain. It has always been supposed 
that it was necessary to have some brains to enable a 
man to talk very much. But, according to that, if the 
monkey had accidentally contracted the habit of talking, 
he might have been where Man is now; he might now 
be demonstrating problems in calculus, enjoying the 
wreath of a poet-laureate, or have occupied the presi- 
dential chair of the United States. 

A curious and incomprehensible thing about this theory 
of evolution is exemplified in the question, How could 
“natural selection,” per se, know enough to wait until 
Man was reached, before it launched the greater intelli- 
gence and enlarged the brain and implanted in it the 
different, advanced qualities of mind which Man pos- 
sesses and exemplifies, of love, reverence, sympathy, etc. ; 
in fact, all the nobler qualities of the human mind, in- 
cluding above all the crowning psychical endowment of 
Man, volition, with a monitor, to guide him in the ex- 
ercise of his free will, conscience? “The moral sense 
which tells us what we ought to be, and the conscience 
which reproves us when we disobey it.” Emanuel Kant 
graphically characterizes when he says: “Duty! won- 
derful thought, that workest neither by fond insinuation, 
flattery nor by threat, but merely by holding up thy naked 
law in the soul, and so extorting for thyself always rev- 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 99 


erence, if not always obedience; before whom all appe- 
tites are dumb, however secretly they rebel; whence thy 
original ?” 

Does any scientist, yes, does anybody, let him be 
scientist or not, believe that the mere act of learning 
to talk, and the use of articulate language, would cause 
to be implanted in the brain of Man all the higher quali- 
ties of mind which characterize him? Impossible. 

Indeed, it strikes me as wonderful that a human mind, 
as above described, should conceive of such a process as 
that expressed in the theory of evolution. Think of it. 
To start the whole train of animal life that has ever 
appeared on this earth from the moneron, a single cell 
(and they know not how they came by that), and by 
the inherent power stored up therein to give the impetus 
that shall perfect all animal life; with all the exquisitely 
beautiful and perfect mechanism of the organic being; 
without the aid of any intelligence whatever ; without any 
external help whatever, only the guidance of nature 
through an imaginary law, “natural selection,” or “the 
survival of the fittest.” 

This is a thousand times more wonderful than that a 
bud should bring forth a leaf or a rose. That is but one 
step in the process, one link in the chain as long as all 
the different forms of animal life link together. And 
all this without guide or architect or executive power 
whatsoever. Starting this immense enterprise with so 
limited a capital, only the “spark of life,’ wrapt up in 
that little globule of protoplastic matter. As if to say to 
itself, I will build myself a monument, by growing to 
- perfection all the animals of whatsoever kind that are to 
inhabit this earth, with Man at the head of all. 

This is where and how Mr. Darwin places his idol, 
otherwise “natural selection,” on a par with Deity. 

Now, if it were possible that this little globule of pro- 
toplastic matter had any inherent intelligence whatso- 
ever, a mind of the most infinitesimal dimensions, or 
had any inherent powers whatsoever, it would have the 
beginning of the requirements, viz., intelligence and 
ability. But it has not even the beginning. Or if this 
so-called law of nature, “selection,” had any qualifica- 


100 WHAT IS MAN? 


tions whatsoever, of intelligence, volition, or ability to 
execute, there might be a shadow of reason in the theory. 
But as neither the cell, representing the unit of organic 
structure and mechanism, as the clay in the hands of the 
potter, nor the powers to be, set up have any qualifi- 
cations whatsoever, it stands as the most unique fake in 
all history. But just here lies its strength. The gigan- 
tic proportions of the fake put it beyond comprehension 
—made it so much of a mystery that the human mind 
could not compass it. And so it is accepted as “profound 
science,’ when it is naught but a metaphysical hodge- 
podge, its principal ingredient being unparalleled au- 
dacity. 

Is that little globule of protoplastic matter a machine, 
wound up for all time and set in motion, never to stop? 
When it is demonstrated that the most mighty intellect 
that ever appeared on this earth (save Jesus Christ) is 
utterly powerless in the matter, how can any sane man 
believe that a little globule of protoplastic matter, about 
I-144,000th of an inch in diameter, could have wrapt up 
within itself the power and possibilities necessary to ac- 
complish the great task set before it, and thereby demon- 
strated the fact that it was possessed of more power and 
intelligence than the most gigantic intellect ever on this 
globe was or is possessed of? Nonsense! 

Such an infinitesimal globule of matter to have more 
intelligence than the perfect brain and mature mind of 
a Newton, a Franklin, a Webster or a Gladstone? Why, 
each cell in their brains had as much, at least, of intelli- 
gence as this primary cell. But in this case, from their 
tell, the untold multiplication of cells, with perfect or- 
ganization and special endowment, had no effect what- 
ever in enhancing the ability of the organic body. Pre- 
posterous! The Arabian Night’s Entertainments are 
to this as the attar of roses compared to pure asafetida 
in point of absurdity. Yet such is the condition made 
necessary by the claims of the theory of evolution, viz., 
that, by evolution, aided by “natural selection,” both of 
which are impotent, some power, resident in the globule 
of protoplastic matter, has accomplished the creation— 


BRAINS OF MAN AND MONKEY 101 


no, the building, the growing up of the animal world, 
from the moneron to Man, all in perfect order. 

It would be interesting to know how “selection” would 
go about it to build a lung, ab initio. Give selection 
the help of another law mentioned, viz., “use and disuse,” 
how will they go to work to perform the task? Cer- 
tainly you cannot use an organ until you have one to 
use. The initiative, then, would rest entirely with selec- 
tion, self-administered. What sane man can really believe 
that such is the history of the lung, with all its beau- 
tiful, symmetrical, anatomical and physiological appoint- 
ments? Or who could believe such to be the history of 
the liver? And then, beyond all that, the endowment of 
that gland with the function of secreting from the blood 
that is poured into it a perfect digestive of certain kinds 
of food, is no small matter. From whence came this 
endowment? Just think of this infinitesimal giobule of 
protoplastic matter, without the shadow of intelligence, 
or Darwin’s specialty in nature, “selection,” endowing 
and functionating other unorganized matter in two capa- 
cities—one to perpetuate the structure of the organ, the 
other to do its duty as a unit in the liver, in its function 
of secreting gall. But hold on a minute! Science has 
declared that matter has no intelligence. A reductio ad 
absurdum. 

Why should the evolutionists prefer to foist this ab- 
surdity, and crib causation by a hair’s breadth, rather 
than acknowledge a “First Cause’? If they allow a 
First Cause, a Creator, at any stage of the proceedings, 
it creates a suspicion that this same First Cause, the 
- Creator, may be, and really is, the Great Actor after 
all. To acknowledge that there is a God mixed up in 
the affair at all destroys, yes, annihilates, their theory. 
Evolution purports to have accomplished creation with- 
out a creator. It is only another edition of Laplace’s 
ideas. He said he found no need for such an hypothesis 
as a Creator, when he had written a book upon the sys- 
tem of the universe. If Laplace could construct the 
universe without a Creator, why should not Darwin build 
the animal world without one? 


CHAPTER V 
EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 


EvoLutionists place great stress on the embryonic 
resemblances of the different species. They say that the 
structure of the embryo is even more important for classi- 
fication than that of the adult; that by this means all the 
great organic beings, extinct and recent, can be arranged 
within a few great classes. Mr. Darwin states that “at a 
certain early stage of the development of the embryo of 
the horse, it can hardly be told which it is an embryo of 
—an elephant, a horse, an ox, or a human being. The 
difficulty is so great, one may be easily mistaken for the 
other by even the most experienced embryologists.”’ 

Mr. Darwin accordingly takes the ground that because 
this is so, it is conclusive evidence that they are all rela- 
tives; all have the same blood in their veins; all are 
branches of the same family; and that the monkey is the 
progenitor of Man. 

Mr. Henry Drummond very eloquently argues for the 
same thing. He says: “The evolutionist sees concen- 
trated into these few months the labor and the progress 
of incalculable ages. Here before him is the whole 
stretch of time since life first dawned upon the earth; 
and as he watches the nascent organism climbing to its 
maturity he witnesses a spectacle which for strangeness 
and majesty stands alone in the field of biological re- 
search. What he sees is not the mere shaping or sculp- 
turing of a Man. The human form does not begin as a 
human form. It begins as an animal; and at first, and 
for a long time to come, there is nothing wearing the 
remotest semblance of humanity. What meets his eye 
is a vast procession of lower forms of life, a succession 


of strange, inhuman creatures emerging from a crowd of 
102 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 103 


still stranger and still more inhuman creatures; and it 
is only after a prolonged and unrecognizable series of 
metamorphoses that they culminate in some faint like- 
ness to the image of him who is one of the newest yet 
one of the oldest of created things. Hitherto we have 
been taught to look among the fossiliferous formations of 
geology for the buried lives of the earth’s past. But em- 
bryology has startled the world by declaring that the 
ancient life of the earth is not dead. It is risen. It 
exists to-day in the embryos of still living things, and 
some of the most archaic types find again a resurrection 
and a life in the frame of Man himself. 

“Tt is an amazing and almost incredible story. The 
proposition is not that Man begins his earthly existence 
in the guise of a lower animal-embryo, but that in the 
successive transformations of the human embryo there is 
reproduced before our eyes a visible, actual, physical 
representation of part of the life-history of the world. 
Human embryology is a condensed account, a recapitu- 
lation or epitome of some of the main chapters in the 
natural history of the world. The same processes of de- 
velopment which once took thousands of years for their 
consummation are here condensed, foreshortened, con- 
centrated into the space of weeks. Each platform reached 
by the human embryo in its upward course represents the 
embryo of some lower animal which in some mysterious 
way has played a part in the pedigree of the human race, 
which may itself have disappeared long since from earth, 
but is now and forever built into the inmost being of 
Man. These lower animals, each at its successive stage, 
have stopped short in their development; Man has gone 
on. At each fresh advance his embryo is found abreast 
of some other animal embryo a little higher in its or- 
ganization than the one just past. Continuing his ascent, 
that also is overtaken, the now very complex embryo 
making up to one animal-embryo after another until it 
has distanced all others in its series and stands alone. 
As the modern stem-winding watch contains the old 
clypsydra and all the most useful features in all the time- 
keepers that were ever made; as the Walter printing 
press contains the rude hand machine of Gutenberg, 


= 


104 WHAT IS MAN? 


and all the best in all the machines that followed it; as 
the modern locomotive of to-day contains the engine of 
Watt, and the locomotive of Hedley, and most of the 
improvements of succeeding years, so Man contains the 
embryonic bodies of earlier and humbler and clumsier 
forms of life.” 

Is it not indeed marvelously wonderful that an intel- 
lect that could write like that should be led so far astray 
from the truth, because he never in his speculations got 
down to the bed-rock of cause and effect? I have quoted 
the last sentence to show the reader how extremely mate- 
rialistic and mechanical the writer is in his ideas of the 
construction of the animate world. With him the animal 
kingdom is constructed on mechanical principles alone. 
Such is certainly a very superficial view, because the 
essential part of an animal is not its mechanism, but its 
personality. But if the beauty and clearness of an ex- 
pression could make it a truth, this story would be true 
indeed. But, fortunately, the beauty of linguistic ex- 
pression, or the clearness of statement, has nothing what- 
ever to do with the truth or the falsity of what is said 
or written. And so we pass this over as a brilliant liter- 
ary triumph, but as wholly misleading and untrue in 
reality, save only in Mr. Drummond’s picturesque im- 
agination. Let us examine this great matter and see if 
the conclusion reached by him is justified by the facts; 
see if the verdict is justified by the evidence, or whether 
there is a reasonable doubt in the case. 

The cell is the unit in the make-up of all organic tis- 
sue, and, in a larger sense, in the make-up of all organic 
life. The cell is very similar in the make-up of nature, 
whether animal or vegetable, only differing in form and 
size. There are many forms of cells, but the funda- 
mental form, especially of the young cell, is spherical, 
whether animal or vegetable, varying in size from 0.005 
to 0.01 of a line in diameter. These globules have a mem- 
brane surrounding them. The cell-membrane is usually 
transparent and colorless, mostly smooth, and so thin 
as to be rarely of any measurable thickness. No traces 
of structure can be detected in it, but it is a protein sub- 
stance. The membrane of the nucleus is similar. In 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 105 


the contents of most cells we usually find such substances 
as occur in solution in the cytoblastema, viz., water, al- 
bumen, fat, extractive matters and salts. In the cells of 
the secreting organs we find the special secretions of 
those glands, as, for instance, the liver. There are two 
perfectly distinct ways in which cells can be generated— 
they may be developed independently of each other or 
other cells in a plastic fluid, as protoplasmic substance ; or 
they may be developed from pre-existing cells by multi- 
plication; the existing cell either producing secondary 
cells within themselves, or multiplying by division, when 
the nucleus seems to be the center of development of 
the young cell. 

The ovum is merely a nucleated cell of special en- 
dowment. That is true of all ova, of all animal life. They 
all present the same characteristics ; in fact, thev are so 
nearly alike that the difference can only be recognized 
by a high-power microscope, and then there is apparent 
only a variation in size. I have said that the ovum was 
merely a nucleated cell of “special endowment.” I want 
to emphasize that statement. Right here is the key that 
would unlock all the mysteries of all the species in animal 
life, if we could but use it. Right here is included the 
whole tale of mystery. In this specially endowed cell 
are locked up and hidden away all the secrets of the 
species, perfectly safe from the intrusion of Man. If 
Man would penetrate to the nucleus and the nucleolus of 
this cell, and recognize, analyze and reveal all the secrets 
there hidden away, he must needs first to understand 
the dynamics of the spiritual world. He must be able 
to recognize and analyze the endowment, and must be 
able to estimate the possibilities of the germ-life therein 
hidden away. To do this, Man must be endowed with 
abilities and attributes on a level with the Creative power. 
Man, at least in his present state, cannot do this. It is 
away beyond his finite powers. Man can only tell what 
is the special endowment of the cell, this wonderful cell, 
after it has been joined to, and amalgamated with, or 
fused with, its correlated element, and thereby become 
vitalized, quickened into a new life and developed some- 
what along the lines of endowment, so as to bring it 


106 WHAT IS MAN? 


within the range of Man’s ability to recognize and dif- 
ferentiate it. 

This only magnifies the extreme folly of any one say- 
ing that because his finite and limited powers do not 
qualify him to delve into the secrets of Deity as in the 
cell deposited, and there to differentiate the germ-life 
in the cell, that it is all one and the same germ-life in all 
cells, all one thing; and then make that decision the test 
as to whether all animal life is one and the same thing 
or not. Or, to put it in another way, because he cannot 
tell anything about it until the embryo differentiates it- 
self, he arrives at the conclusion that, or takes for granted 
that, there is only one endowment common to all germ- 
cells; which starts at the bottom of the ladder and re- 
hearses all the past and present animal life, before it ends 
up finally with Man. And concludes therefore, that all 
animal life is one and the same thing in its beginning; 
that life can only start in the Moneron. The very fact 
that the embryo always differentiates itself, never goes 
wrong, ought to teach any man not joined to his idols, 
that all germ-life is not the same; that the endowment is 
specific and binding in each genus. Because the em- 
bryonic life in several species presents similar appear- 
ances, as, all placentals begin development exactly alike, 
so far as the mode of development is concerned, and 
Man is not able to tell them apart, it does not follow 
that all are the same, or are of one type thus far. Not 
at all. 

Mr. Drummond says that Man does not begin as Man, 
but as an animal, and recapitulates all previous animal 
life before he becomes Man. Now, inasmuch as he can- 
not differentiate embryonic life, how does he know that? 
He does not know it at all. That is only a picturesque, 
but absurdly unscientific guess. It is evidently not true, 
as we shall show. 

I submit that the fact that the human embryo always 
develops into a human being and nothing else; that the 
embryo of the horse always develops into a horse and 
nothing else; and so on all along the line of the genera, 
never going wrong in any case, is positive proof to any 
candid mind that, in each case, the endowment of the life- 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 107 


germ was different and specific in each case. The em- 
bryo of Man does not start as an animal, else it would 
develop into an animal and not a human being. If the 
human embryo starts as an animal, how could it become 
human? For a man, posing as a scientist, to make such 
a statement is trifling; and shows plainly that he is su- 
perficial in his studies. To say that, because I do not 
know enough, my powers of discerning are not acute 
enough to differentiate germ-life or embryonic life, there- 
fore they are all alike, they are all one and the same thing 
at the beginning, is absurd. Especially is this so when 
the sequel shows, and proves positively, that they are not 
at any time alike, or one and the same thing, but that each 
is different from the others. 

In opposition to the views of those who believed in the 
doctrine of spontaneous generation, Mr. Harvey laid 
down the principle that all animals are produced from 
eggs; and more recent researches have fully confirmed 
this view, with the few possible exceptions of the gem- 
miparous and fissiparous animalcule; or those animal- 
cule which multiply by buds, or propagate by division. 
These exceptional cases occur, possibly, only in very low 
forms of animal life; and, even in those cases, in retrac- 
ing the phases of animal life, we arrive at an epoch in 
which the incipient animal is enclosed in an egg. Now 
this egg, in all cases, contains the one element of life only. 
It may be said to contain the dynamis of life, in its latent 
form, and when quickened by fusing with its correlated 
element the dynamis is set in motion and life is begun. 
It is then termed an embryo; and the modifications which 
this embryo undergoes before the young animal has an 
independent existence are included in the general term, 
development of the embryo. 

This brings us to a point where a definition of 
life is desirable, if we can make or find one. Multi- 
tudinous efforts have been made to give a. definition of 
that very common asset in the animal world, but none are 
satisfactory. Mr. Spencer’s definition has already been 
given, and, for those who can fathom it, may be well 
enough. In following the destiny of the ovum, it 1s be- 
lieved that the following wording expresses all the essen- 


108 WHAT IS MAN? 


tials of a definition of life: Life is a dynamis residing 
latently and primarily in the ovum, which, being set in 
motion by the fusing of the sexual elements, in a suita- 
ble environment, acts and perpetuates itself by integra- 
tion and disintegration of the molecules composing its in- 
dividual, organic habitat without destroying its individ- 
uality; and is controlled and rendered effective by co- 
ordination. 

Before embryology was properly studied, all animals 
were arranged under two heads—the oviparous, which 
lay eggs; and the viviparous, which bring forth their 
young alive. It is now known that viviparous animals 
are produced by eggs. The only difference in this re- 
spect being that their eggs, instead of being laid before 
development of the embryo, begin to undergo their early 
changes in the body of the mother. 

The eggs originate within organs termed ovaries, pe- 
culiar to and characteristic of the female, except in those 
cases in which both male and female reproductive organs 
are associated in the same individual. 

The ovaries are glandular bodies, and are usually situ- 
ated in the abdominal cavity. So long as the eggs re- 
main in the ovary they are very minute, and in this con- 
dition they are called ovarian or primitive eggs. As has 
been said before, these eggs are very similar if not iden- 
tical in looks in all animals, being in fact merely little 
cells, containing yolk substance, in which is inclosed the 
germinative vesicle and the germinative dot. The yolk 
itself, with its membrane, is formed while the egg re- 
mains in the ovary; it is afterwards inclosed in another 
membrane which may either remain soft, or may be sur- 
rounded by calcareous deposit, as we observe in the bird’s 
eggs. 

“The egg, when it has attained a certain degree of ma- 
turity, leaves the ovary. This step in the process is termed 
ovulation. After leaving the ovary, the eggs are either 
discharged from the animal, and undergo their further 
changes in the external world, or they continue their de- 
velopment within the body of the mother; in which case 
they become intimately united to her by the intervention 
of certain temporary structures, namely, the placenta and 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 109 


umbilical cord. This mode of development is called gesta- 
tion. 

Germ-life and embryonic life, in all the different species 
of the animal kingdom, are amenable to the same laws. 
The same procedure is common to all. But that fact of- 
fers no proof that the germ-life or the embryonic life is 
always the same germ or embryonic life in the different 
species; but it does demonstrate the unity of plan. 

When a boy, I was one day plowins corn on a little 
farm back in Ohio. The land was a little stony, and in 
the bright sunlight I saw the sparkle of what I thought 
was tiny scales of gold dotting the surface of a little 
stone. I picked the stone up, brushed it off clean, and 
looked at it a long time. The more I looked at it the 
more I was convinced that they were tiny specks of gold. 
I put the stone in my pocket carefully, and looked for 
more. I found several stones, on the surface of which 
were the same bright yellow specks. When I went home 
I gleefully told my father that I had found some gold 
stones in the cornfield. I really felt hurt when he said: 
“Oh, I guess not; let’s see them.” I produced the stones, 
and we looked at them. I also watched father’s face, to 
see his expression. He looked the specimens over closely, 
and I imagined I could discern a credulous look. My 
heart palpitated with excitement, from the fancied as- 
surance that father, too, thought the tiny yellow specks 
were gold. Presently he said: “I do not think it is gold, 
but I will tell you how you can tell whether it is gold 
or not. Take the stone to the drug-store and ask Dr. 
Tompkins to put a drop of nitric acid on it, and if it is 
gold it will not turn black, but will be brighter than now; 
but if these tiny scales turn black they are not gold.” [I 
ran to the store, only a couple of blocks away, and asked 
the old doctor if he would put a drop of nitric acid on 
the stone. ‘Now, what have you got?” as he looked at 
it. “Where did you get it?” “It’s gold.” He dropped a 
drop of acid on to the stone, and at once all the specks 
turned black. My heart almost stopped beating, 1 was 
so disappointed. It was only iron pyrites. 

I thought because the scales were yellow and looked 
like gold that they were gold, but they were not. I did 


I10 WHAT IS MAN? 


not know enough to differentiate iron pyrites, in the shape 
of little yellow scales on the surface of a stone, from 
specks of gold, but the test very soon decided the ques- 
tion for me. Were it possible for us to apply a test to 
the germ in the ovum, we might decide whether the fu- 
ture product would be a Man or a horse. But that we 
cannot do. All we have to do, however, is to wait and 
see the product; that will decide the question with no 
mistake. Then I thought that all that glittered and looked 
like gold was gold. Maybe that is just what Mr. Drum- 
mond thought when he wrote the above quotation. But 
does not that show extreme short-sightedness for a scien- 
tist? Such a mistake could be pardoned in a boy, espe- 
cially as his influence on society is nil; but hardly could 
it be pardoned in a person who poses as a scientist, and 
whose influence as a teacher may influence thousands to 
embrace a fallacy. Would anybody be justified in say- 
ing: All tiny little yellow scales which you see imbedded 
in the rocks, or adhering to the surface of stone, are iron 
pyrites at first, but later some are turned into gold by 
some means unknown to me. What kind of science would 
that be? Yet the cases are parallel. 

But let us examine Mr. Drummond’s statement a little 
closer. He would have you believe that the human em- 
bryo passes through all the different forms of animal life 
that have ever been on this earth, from the Moneron up 
to Man, the ovum, presumably, representing the Moneron. 
Reader, turn back and read again his wonderful state- 
ment. He says, here before him is the whole stretch of 
time since life first dawned upon this earth. 

The human embryo is easily recognizable before or at 
the end of the sixth week— 42 days, or 1,000 hours. It 
is estimated that there are about 250,000 different forms 
of animal life on this earth. The human embryo then 
would have to pass through 250,000 different forms of 
life in less than 1,000 hours, more than 5,952 every day; 
or 248 every hour; or 40 each minute, only one second 
and a half allowed to make the change from a rhinoceros 
to an elephant. Is not that going some? 

The centers of ossification of the future bones in the 
embryonic body must have varied in number very greatly 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY Tit 


during all these transition scenes, which only took one 
and a half seconds to complete. For instance, when the 
human embryo was a sloth it had nine cervical vertebre. 
Since the dorsal vertebre vary from eleven to twenty- 
three in the different animals, finally he would have to 
get back to twelve of the human species. The number 
of the lumbar vertebrze vary from two to nine in the dif- 
ferent species ; and the caudal vertebrz vary from five to 
forty in the different animal species, while Man has none. 
But besides all this there would have to be numerous 
other anatomical changes. When it was a fish it would 
have to have a swim-bladder; when it was a turkey it 
would have to have a crop and a gizzard; and so on, ad 
infinitum, and only one and one-half seconds allowed in 
which to make the change from one form to another 
form. Did selection do all this? 

Certainly Man’s common sense tells him that this fancy 
tale is all fiction. There is not a word of truth in it. 
What force or power could operate to remove the super- 
numerary, miniature bones and make the other anatomi- 
cal changes? It is simply nonsense—the absurdity of ab- 
surdities. And yet it is called Science. 

The human embryo starts as such, and is never, at any 
time or stage of its existence, anything else than a hu- 
man embryo. As a matter of course, in the very early 
stages of embryonic life, it does not resemble the human 
form in its perfected stage. Neither does the bud of the 
rose resemble the full-blown rose, yet it is a miniature 
rose and nothing else. Such is the modus operandi that 
it pleased the Creator to put in operation for the propaga- 
tion and the perpetuation of the species on this earth. It 
is complete in all its parts and workings, and beyond the 
ken of the human mind. 

The exercise of Man’s fertile imagination does not af- 
fect the truth in reality, but it serves to cover up and 
prevent a correct understanding of the truth. The real 
truth is hidden from sight, and fiction takes its place for 
atime. This is such a time, as the result of the promul- 
gation of the fictitious doctrine of “the evolution of the 
species.” 

The nucleated cell of special endowment is constructed 


II2 WHAT IS MAN? 


in nature’s own laboratory, the ovary. Such a laboratory 
is located in the body of each female specimen of each 
genus, in the animal kingdom; if she be a true represen- 
tative of the genus. This special endowment takes place 
in this laboratory also. It is this special endowment that 
makes the cell an ovum and not a common cell; and be- 
ing an ovum, it is a vital element. The special endow- 
ment consists in a commission, so to speak, to this vital 
element, to unite and fuse with the male vital element, 
the spermatozoon, and proceed to form a true representa- 
tive of the same genus, no other. This fusing of the two 
vital elements produces a vital spark, which when lighted 
up constitutes the vital principle of the new being. Thus 
two correlated vital elements united have become fused 
into one vital principle, which, after having built its new 
tenement, constitutes a new being. This fusing of the two 
vital elements is synonymous with impregnation; and is 
accomplished by the spermatozoon, the male vital element, 
piercing the cell-membrane of this specially endowed cell, 
the ovum, the female vital element, and ensconcing him- 
self in the nucleolus or the vitellus of the ovum; when 
circumstanced by suitable environments. Immediately 
this new vital principle, this new life, goes to work to 
carry out its commission by endowment from both sides of 
the house; and in a few moments both vital elements have 
lost their identity in the new life thus created. Now, as 
soon as these two correlated elements have fused in the 
new cell, this same cell furnishes the beginning of the 
new dwelling; and it now contains potentially all that 
can be developed out of it or from it. This cell now con- 
tains all the embryonic elements which afterward develop 
into brain, bone, skin, fat, muscle, nerve and organ; after 
a certain pattern contained in the specifications of its 
commission. The architecture of the future body is con- 
tained in this cell; and the moment the vital spark is 
lighted up, the latent energy now transformed into the 
new vital principle of a new being, it goes to work to 
build a new tenement for its own habitation—‘every one 
after its kind.” Thus the vital principle of the genus 
Homo builds a habitation like unto the body of the genus 
Homo, and no other. 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 113 


The fusing of the two vital elements usually takes place 
in the fallopian tube, and within a few hours a number 
of secondary cells are formed within the ovum, which is 
already beginning to enlarge, by a process of cleavage or 
segmentation, arranging themselves around the nucleo- 
lus, which by some is called the “embryonic spot.” This 
first microscopic spot, developed in the ovum, is the cell 
which shortly develops into the bulb of the medulla ob- 
longata, the center of all animal life; and from which all 
the future development of the embryo proceeds, and 
through which every cell to be developed receives the im- 
petus of the vital principle engaged in the task of build- 
ing for itself a new temple. This spot seems to be the 
throne of the vital principle through life. Throughout 
the life of the body every cell receives its life-impetus 
through this center of animal life. This is common to all 
forms of animal life. Do you think it came about by 
chance? 

During the first week the ovum remains in the fallo 
pian tube, slowly moving downwards. Meanwhile kee 
ing up the process of segmentation; this stage is know, 
as “segmentation of the ovum.” When first entering ths 
tube the ovum measures about 1-125th of an inch, but i 
its downward passage through the fallopian tube it in- 
creases in size to from 1-5o0th to 1-25th of an inch in 
diameter. 

At about the eighth day, when the ovum reaches the 
womb and finds a lodgment, by means of the villi thrown 
out upon the endometrium, it is then called the ‘“em- 
bryo.”’ A portion of the mucosa grows up around the 
ovum or embryo, which is called the decidua reflexa. That 
portion of the mucous membrane of the womb upon which 
the ovum attaches itself is known as the decidua serotina, 
and the remaining portion of the mucous membrane con- 
stitutes the decidua vera. 

At twelve to fourteen days the ovum is a rounded, 
somewhat flattened sac from three to five millimeters in 
diameter, smooth, except at the equatorial zone, where a 
number of short villi make their appearance. The entire 
ovum now measures about 1-4th of an inch, and the em- 
bryo about 1-12th of an inch. 


114 WHAT, IS MAN? 


At the end of the third week the entire ovum is cov- 
ered with villi, which now begin to branch and increase 
in length. The embryo measures about 1-6th of an inch, 
and presents as characteristic features: a strongly curved 
back, primary divisions of brain, appearance of visceral 
arches, rudiments of primitive ocular and auditory vesi- 
cles. The primary circulation is established; the alimen- 
tary canal presents a straight tube. Growth and develop- 
ment have pushed out on all sides of the common center 
of life. In the Vertebrata, in which the spinal cord is 
common to all, the cord at first develops faster than the 
upper structures, but the cerebellum rapidly develops into 
an enlarged bulb at the cephalic end of the embryo. 
Above this the mid-brain protrudes as another bulb, and 
in front of this the fore-brain is overhanging. 

Under a magnifying glass, the embryo now has the 
shape of a lobulated bulb with a segmented tail. This 
segmented appearance is merely a series of constrictions 
in the cord; there are thirty-two constrictions, to mark 
the future vertebrae, or the nerve-centers corresponding 
to the vertebrae. The embryo is now curved upon itself 
in the shape of a semi-circle. At the sides of the middle 
lobe there is a dark spot on either side which mark the 
future eyes. A little back of and below these spots, at 
the bases of the sides of the cerebellum, are two spots, 
one on either side, the auditory vesicles, which are to be 
the future ears. 

As yet there is no thorax or abdomen; nothing but the 
spinal cord, and there are no viscere. From about the 
middle of this segmented tail there has developed a sys- 
tem of vessels a few inches long and terminating in a 
globe larger than the embryo itself, which is called the 
umbilical vesicle, which furnishes the nutriment of the 
embryo. In front of the bulb marking the cerebellum, 
and under the fore-brain, are a series of five incomplete 
arches, springing laterally and meeting eventually at the 
median line in front. Each arch is separate from the 
other. When the embryo is fully developed the upper 
one of these arches will form the upper jaw; the second 
one will form the lower jaw; between these two, when 
the two sides of the arches have united, is a five-sided 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 11 


opening, the future mouth and lips. The other three 
arches eventually form the neck, over the roots of the 
tongue and larynx. These arches are called branchial 
arches, from their fancied resemblance to the arches in 
the fish that support the gills. They have also been called 
“gill-slits.” 

Evolutionists insist that these arches are the vestiges 
of the fish in Man, and that the presence of these arches 
in the human embryo shows the evolution of Man through 
the fish. According to Mr. Drummond, when these arches 
appear in the human embryo, from the second to the 
fourth week of gestation (thus lasting two weeks and not 
only a second and a half, as we have seen the time al- 
lowed), the embryo is a fish and not a human being in 
embryo at all. These arches form no part of the respira- 
tory organs in the future Man, as the branchial arches do 
in the fish. Mr. Drummond also states that the human 
ear is built from the fish’s gills. The fact is that the au- 
ditory vesicles are located and appear before the arches 
begin to spring, and the vesicles are located back of where 
the arches spring from. These arches have no more to do 
with the formation of the human ear than the Czar of 
Russia has to do with the government of the United 
States. Common sense says these “gill-slits’ are the re- 
sult of natural development; they are a part of the speci- 
fications in the binding instructions for the building of the 
structures of the jaws and mouth. Really, how would an 
arch be sprung, if not from the bases of the sides of the 
arch? It cannot be built in any other way. Was the 
Creator so limited in resources that he had to fall back 
_ on the fish’s gills to finish off a Man’s mouth? The bran- 
chial arches are not an hereditary asset from the body of 
the fish, because the fish is the progenitor of Man away 
back in the line; but the simple springing of an arch, as 
there was a chasm to bridge, and this series of five arches 
successfully bridges the chasm; thereby forming the up- 
per and lower jaws, which are both complete arches, and 
the superficial structures over the roots of the tongue and 
larynx. 

The fish does have the “gill-slits,” but why imagine that 
fact has anything to do with the branchial arches in the 


116 WHAT IS MAN? 


human embryo? This is the product of the flighty im- 
agination of the man who wrote “The Vestiges,” but who 
was ashamed to put his name to the production, in an at- 
tempt to bolster up a bankrupt cause by a senseless as- 
sertion of an imaginary condition. And all made neces- 
sary by the doctrine of evolution (then in embryo), and 
suggested by some anatomist in the past, who in describ- 
ing the anatomy of this particular region in the embryo 
gave them the name branchial arches because in his mind’s 
eye they somewhat resembled the branchie of the fish. 

I once knew a lady, a maiden lady, pretty well along in 
years, and a great lover of tea, and who at times had her 
ideation influenced by hallucinations of various kinds, but 
who at one particular time imagined that her body was a 
teapot. She put her right hand to her side and said: 
“There is the handle”; and then, holding the left hand out 
from the body, with the fingers pointing downwards: 
“There is the spout. Don’t you see the tea pouring from 
it?’ This was no more of a perversion of normal idea- 
tion than to imagine that the branchial arches in the hu- 
man embryo are the vestiges of the old fish nature cling- 
ing to the flesh and being reproduced in the human being. 

It is claimed that there are something like seventy in- 
stances in Man’s anatomy where “vestiges” of some ani- 
mal or other that had figured in the line of descent had 
left their mark in Man’s body; but they are all of the 
same imaginary stamp. 

The only anatomical part in the human body seriously 
to be considered, at first thought, with a possibility of its 
being a vestige of some previous form of animal life is 
the appendix vermiformis, it having survived all attempts 
of the evolutionary scheme to erase it. Evolutionists say 
this worm-like appendage is the rudimentary remains of 
the elongated czecum of the herbivorous animals, in which 
this portion of the intestinal canal serves as a reservoir 
for the elaboration and absorption of food, the atrophied 
portion only now remaining. 

A careful study of the claims of evolution will show 
that Man had no herbivorous animals, such as ruminants, 
as progenitors back in the evolutionary line. It is claimed 
by Mr. Darwin that Man came up through the mollusks, 


EMBRYOLOGY AND. HEREDITY | 117 


ganoids, amphibians, reptiles and birds. And then the 
bird again became an animal, and the descent continued 
on through the opossum, stenops, semnopythecus, etc., up 
to Man. While others leave out the bird proposition al- 
together and make the line from the Amphioxis, lamprey, 
amblystoma, iguana, ‘opossum, stenops, semnopythecus, 
gorilla, gibbon, australian, civili—the split coming a few 
removes from the first specimen of the vertebrates. Quite 
a different route from that of the herbivorous, ruminating 
quadrupeds. So that the appendix vermiformis could 
not have been the vestige of some previous form of a 
ruminant animal life, as claimed by the anonymous 
author of “The Vestiges.” 

The physiology of the appendix vermiformis is un- 
known. It has been suggested or conjectured, but not 
proven, that it may secrete a lubricant for the stimula- 
tion of the cecum and colon, under very uncertain cir- 
cumstances, as it is provided with a sphincter muscle at 
its opening into the cecum, and has peristaltic action; 
however, it is found that those having had the appendix 
removed get along quite well without it. 

It is entirely safe to say that nobody knows what its 
use is, or why Man was made with this apparently use- 
less appendage. Its presence may possibly be explained 
by saying that Man, in his early history and life, was a 
vegetarian, and had use for the part at that time. His 
food was then entirely different from what it is now, at 
any rate. It is practically certain that, in his early his- 
tory, Man did not cook his food, because he did not know 
enough to build a fire for centuries upon centuries, as we 
are told by evolutionists. For anything we know he may 
have eaten grass at first, though it is hardly probable. 
[From a biblical account, Man could do so, and not only 
live but flourish, as Nebuchadnezzer did for seven years, 
and regained his health and reason by so doing. Surely 
this is as reasonable a solution of the question as the 
building of the human ear out of the fish’s gills!] 

It is a fact that the early embryonic life in all placental 
animals, if not indeed all Vertebrata, shows marked re- 
-semblances; the differences are not capable of being dis- 
cerned by Man’s eyes, or even by the aid of the micro- 


118 WHAT IS MAN? 


scope; yet reason tells us that they are essentially differ- 
ent, else why should they be so different in mature life? 
They may and do look alike, for a time, to Man’s senses, 
but they are not alike in the essential life. In the stage 
of “segmentation of the ovum,” they look alike because 
that process is carried on by a law which applies to all 
forms of life amenable to that law, viz., that one cell di- 
vides into two, two into four, four into eight, eight into 
sixteen, sixteen into thirty-two, thirty-two into sixty-four, 
and so on indefinitely ; and the cells themselves look alike 
also. Soon, however, the differences begin to be apparent 
—the vital principle overseeing the work differentiates the 
product every time. 

At the fourth week the entire ovum is about the size 
of a pigeon’s egg, measuring about three-quarters of an 
inch in diameter, and weighing about forty grains. The 
embryo measures about one-third of an inch in length, 
and resembles a thick, soft worm curled up. The head 
and ‘“‘tail” meet; the back is a circle. The eyes are more 
plainly marked; the limbs are indicated by two pairs of 
bud-like processes. The so-called “caudal extremity” pro- 
jects as a free tail; and upon the back, on each side of 
the median line, are mapped out the vertebre, a series of 
quadrilateral areas. When the lower limbs are developed 
this so-called caudal extremity, which evolutionists say is 
proof that Man had a tailed ancestor, is all there still; it 
is not absorbed, but is built into the structures and con- 
cealed by the formation of the hips. The so-called tail is 
there just the same, but the superficial structures have 
concealed it from view. 

At the fifth week the embryo measures about two inches 
long, and is contained in the chorionic vesicle, of about 
forty meters in diameter. 

Up to the sixth week the term embryo has been used 
to designate the human offspring. After the sixth week 
the name foetus is applied to it, as the form is distinctly 
human. It is not necessary to my purpose to follow the 
development of the embryo further, only to say that, from 
now on to the close of the placental life of the embryo the 
changes are only those of perfecting the organism to its 
maturity. This miniature life has been produced by the 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 119 


operation of a definite law; and in the evolution of the 
embryo from a single cell to the perfected organism 
(which is true evolution), it was all accomplished by vir- 
tue of the human vital principle; quickened by the fusing 
of the two correlated vital elements of the genus Homo. 

In treating of embryology, I have not sought to be 
very critically minute and elaborate of details, or technical 
in the terms used; neither have I attempted to note all the 
changes taking place in the embryonic life; stages have 
been noted, being more comprehensive, more than 
changes; as it would be impossible to note all the changes 
taking place in embryonic life. 

Now, if Prof. Huxley could say that, because the hu- 
man embryo closely resembles the embryos of the lower 
animals; so closely indeed that Man is incapable of dif- 
ferentiating them; and that this one fact alone convinces 
him that Man must look for his progenitor among the 
lower animals, I can say: Because the vital elements, of 
any species, when fused will produce only the vital prin- 
ciple of the same, and only the same, as that of the species 
from which the vital elements came, it is impossible that 
the progenitor of Man could have been one of the lower 
animals. It is not only an improbability, but it is an im- 
possibility. Yes, I can say: This being absolutely the 
case, there never was an intermediate form of life on this 
earth; and that change, of what we call genera, by natu- 
ral descent, is also an impossibility. Then there never 
was a Pythecanthropus erectus on this earth, save only as 
it existed in Dr. Haeckel’s imaginative brain. Therefore 
it is plain that the progenitor of Man could not have been 
an animal in the personality of the chimpanzee or the go- 
rilla, one of which is the hypothecated progenitor of the 
hypothecated Pythecanthropus erectus, the “missing 
link.” 

Neither Man nor any form of animal life had any 
progenitor but the Creator, Almighty God. None other 
could construct such a plan and put it into execution, be- 
cause of lack of jurisdiction. 

This endowment of the vital elements in nature’s own 
laboratory, each genera having its own special form of 
laboratory and endowment, is a continuation by a law, by 


120 WHAT IS MAN? 


successive endowments, from the first endowment by the 
Creator direct, special to each separate genus. | 

It would be just as impossible for the ovum and the 
spermatozoon, the two vital elements that fuse and cause 
a new life, to unite and cause the new vital principle of 
one genus to come into being, to build a tenement for an- 
other species, as it would be for the coral to build a 
tenement for itself in the shape or likeness of a turtle’s 
shell. Nothing can be evolved from that new life, what- 
soever it be, more or less, or different from the endow- 
ment it has received from its progenitors. If the progen- 
itors be animals, the commission given to the new life 
will be to build a temple in all essential features like unto 
the temple that the progenitors dwelt in when they caused 
the two vital elements to come together, and by fusing 
caused the new vital principle of the new life. 

Pigeons could not commission a new vital principle to 
build a residence temple like unto that in which the eagle 
dwells. “Every species shall bring forth of its kind only.” 
For that reason, Mr. Darwin could raise nothing but 
pigeons from pigeons. Different genera are not fertile to 
or with each other when put together. It would be im- 
possible, then, that one genus could be the progenitor of 
another genus. Each genus has a vital principle peculiar 
to itself that is entirely separate and distinct from all oth- 
ers. The vital elements, which fuse and cause a new vital 
principle to blaze up, are just as peculiar to each genus. 
This, I take it, is the reason why two separate and dis- 
tinct species cannot unite for procreation; because the 
two vital elements are not correlated, they will not fuse 
in order to produce a new vital principle. 

This is no fancy tale, but is in perfect harmony with 
all nature. From this it must be perfectly plain, and 
geology confirms us in saying, that there never was such 
a thing on this earth as an intermediate, transitional form 
of life. On the contrary, geology shows plainly that each 
species came suddenly on the scene, evidently the result 
of a new and separate creation by a competent creative 
power. 

The very fact that each vital principle or life-force pur- 
sues the same plans for procreation, works along the 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY I2I 


same general lines, after the same manner, demonstrates 
the unity of authorship. And the foregoing demonstrates 
that there must have been a separate creation for each 
species, if that term is used in the place of genus. It is 
very true that, for a time, the product of one vital prin- 
ciple closely resembles the product of another vital prin- 
ciple; but the further fact that they always differentiate 
themselves, never get into a mix-up, shows beyond all 
doubt that a separate vital principle is at work in each 
embryonic form—a separate and specific endowment for 
each genus, by transmission from its progenitors. Now 
this act of endowment constitutes a miracle. No man can 
do it, nor tell how it is done. It is the act of a super- 
natural power and an adequate cause. It is inconceiva- 
ble by the human mind, that life, in any of the organic 
forms of creation, is actually created by sexuality or sex- 
passion. The creative force of the vital principle seems 
to be something utterly and entirely transcending con- 
scious life, and sex is but the instrument by which it is 
made manifest. 

The Creator endowed the first pair with power, and 
put into their bodies the special laboratories in which to 
construct those vital elements—sexual elements—each one 
separate and distinct from the other, but so correlated in 
the same genus that, when they come in contact with each 
other, in a suitable environment, they fuse and cause a 
new vital principle to blaze up. And then to transmit to 
the progeny this same power—no more, no less. Each 
can transmit that which it has to transmit, viz., that 
which it received when the first pair came from the hands 
_ of the Creator. 

Mr. Drummond says: “When the first cell started that 
was to be Man in the future, the difference between that 
cell and the cell that was eventually to be an elephant 
could not be distinguished by a microscope.” Thus stat- 
ing in effect that Man really started, in the Moneron, as 
man, but for some unaccountable reason he must be 
clothed in the garb and form of all the lower orders of 
animal life, some time during his rise, originally, to the 
state of Man; but since having arrived at the estate of 
Man he thinks this entire transition scene of 250,000 


122 WHAT IS .MAN? 


changes into the different forms of life takes place in the 
embryonic stage of gestation. Now this unique doctrine 
injects an entirely new theory into the arena of discus- 
sion. This exhibits another phase of evolution, peculiar 
to Mr. Drummond alone. The difficulty with this theory 
would seem to be that every animal would have to have a 
cell stamped with his image upon it as a starting, if Man 
had such cell, and the elephant also. Yet all would float 
along in the same common stream of life, only stopping 
off when each one’s station was reached. Then each spe- 
cies would be produced by the selfsame cell that originally 
started to be Man, eventually. Then each cell would pro- 
duce all the species; and all the cells of the 250,000 spe- 
cies would produce each. This would require as many 
distinct and separate yet parallel lines as there are genera, 
all coming up side by side, intermingling, amalgamating 
and mixing ad libitum as they came along up the com- 
mon highway of life. If such had been the case, would 
we have such a thing as genera to-day? Would there not 
be, instead of well-marked genera, a lot of nondescripts 
containing the blood of every known brute? Does not 
the stringency in the laws of nature make this an im- 
possible theory? A very curious and striking lapse in his 
theory is the total absence of any causation whatever. He 
is not as consistent as Mr. Darwin, who sets up an idol 
in the name of “selection,” as the causative factor in his 
theory. 

Let us next consider heredity. 

We have heard a great deal about heredity as an ele- 
ment in evolution—as a necessary element in the process 
of the evolution of the species. Dr. Haeckel says: “If 
we cannot have progressive heredity and transmutation, 
our theory is a failure.” Mention has been made of the 
incongruence of these two influences, working contempo- 
raneously on the helpless smbryo. We have also rele- 
gated transmutation to the junk pile, as a relic of the 
superstitions of ancient Egypt. But suppose that trans- 
mutation was or is a reality—what could heredity do with 
transmutation tagging along after it? 

A short but comprehensive definition of heredity would 
be: The fect of trans ission of physical or mental quali- 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 123 


ties from ancestor to offspring. Or perhaps a more suc- 
cinct definition is: The tendency which there is in each 
animal to resemble its parents. In Man this tendency is 
recognized in the mental sphere, as well as in the physical 
body. 

Is that anything more or additional than the function 
given to the vital principle? Perhaps the definitions above 
given are not comprehensive enough or specific enough. 
It is possible that the element we call heredity may in- 
fluence the vital principle, and thereby make specific what 
was before general. For instance: A father has web- 
fingers; he was born with them through some accidental 
slip of nature. It might first have occurred generations 
back in the line. Now the progeny are liable to have 
web-fingers; not only liable, but are almost sure to have 
web-fingers, if the prepotency is on his side of the house; 
but if the prepotency is on the other side of the house, 
the progeny may not have, probably will not have, web- 
fingers. Just so with any peculiarity of structure or 
temperament that is born with the child; they are liable 
to be transmitted to the progeny of that child. 
Heredity, then, is but supplementary to the vital 
principle, and not the supreme power. Again, if the 
web-fingers had been caused by, or were the result of, 
an accident, such as a severe burn, there is no liability 
of the progeny having web-fingers. In the latter case 
the web-fingers supervened the making up of the per- 
sonality ; were not caused by the action of the vital prin- 
ciple, but by the carelessness of the patient. They were 
not included in the endowment, and will not be transmit- 
_ ted to the progeny. From this it will be seen that heredity, 
in the first instance, supplemented the vital principle, be- 
cause the web-fingers were born with the child, and 
therefore additional specifications were a part of the com- 
mission. A man might have his leg cut off by accident 
or otherwise, but heredity would not step in and cut off 
the leg of this man’s progeny. 

Is this a true interpretation of what we call the laws 
of heredity? If so, it only strengthens our position, and 
demonstrates to a nicety the proposition first advanced 
by Nussbaum and afterwards elaborated by Weissman, 


124 WHAT IS MAN? 


viz.: “The whole nature of the animal or plant depends 
upon the germinal substance (the vital elements), and 
that the resemblance of the offspring to the parent 1s 
due to every gonoblast containing some germinal mat- 
ter.” In other words, that every atom or granule con- 
tained in the vitellus has been vitalized by the fusing of 
the vital elements of the parents, so that all the possible 
energy stored up in the ovum was liberated and had a 
part in perfecting the vital principle. 

Now this is entirely different from Darwin’s philosophy 
of pangenesis, which is derived from De Vries’ theory 
of intracellular pangenesis, which holds that: “The 
nuclear substance of the germ-plasm is composed of min- 
ute particles, pangenes, not cells, but the bearers of the 
properties of the cells. There are also in the nucleus 
nuclear rods, called idants and chromatin rods, which are 
built up of a series of ancestral plasms, called ids, each 
representing an individuality.” In plain language, this 
philosophy of pangenesis holds that each individual cell, 
whether it be a germ-cell or a somatic cell (Kolliker, it 
is said, has demonstrated that there is no difference be- 
tween a germ-cell and a somatic cell), generates and 
contains its own vitality, and gives off gemules that are 
capable of reproducing their kind, by transmission of 
these gemules to the progeny. 

This philosophy of pangenesis makes the cell, somatic 
as well as germ, the ‘Master Builder’ and the source 
of life. It denies the existence of a vital principle, and 
asserts that life is made up of the synthetic contributions 
from the life that exists independently in each cell: 
whereas Nussbaum’s philosophy makes the vital princi- 
pal the ““Master Builder” and the source of life, each cell 
being vitalized by the vital principle; and so, when the 
vital principle ceases to act, death results. The one 
theory would have the bodily form the all-potent factor 
in furnishing and fashioning life; the other philosophy 
holds that the vital principle is the life and fashions the 
bodily form. ; 

Which is the more reasonable of the two philosophies? 
Which element in the construction of animal life and 
form has the priority—the cell, or the life which is the 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 125 


vital principle? Is it true that the cell, called the ovum, 
was there before the fusing of the sexual elements took 
place, which fusing gave birth to the new vital principle 
or the new life? But this cell, the ovum, is one of the 
vital elements which go to make up the new vital prin- 
ciple, and it could do nothing in itself, perfectly im- 
potent while alone, or until it is fused with its correlated 
element. Then, and not till then, was the first act per- 
formed in the formation of the new being. And what 
was that first act? The fusing of the sexual elements 
caused the vital principle, as a spark, to be lighted up, 
which constitutes the new life. Then, at once, the con- 
structive process begins, and not till then. Just as soon 
as the vital spark is lighted up, the new vital principle 
exists, before a single cell of the embryo is constructed. 
What power on this earth but the vital principle could 
construct the first cell? There is but one answer: There 
is no other power employed, neither can there be. And 
if this vital principle constructed the first cell, it also 
constructed every successive cell, until the last one of 
the organism was finished. Where, then, is there any — 
grounds for the theory of pangenesis? It is as ground- 
les as the theory of evolution. 

When the vital spark is lighted up, the ovum has 
fulfilled its destiny, so far as function is concerned; but 
its material component parts furnish sustenance for the 
embryo for a brief interval of time, when it perishes 
forever. All the future development of the embryo is 
dependent primarily upon the vital principle. In the 
new life the vital principle has the decided priority, and 
_ was the causative factor of the development; and by 
virtue of its potency, the new life continues to exist. The 
vital principle is the “Master Builder” of the cell. Hence 
we say the vital principle constructs the bodily form, and 
not the bodily form the life of that form. 

Because of this logical conclusion, it is not only fan- 
tastically imaginative, but unscientific to claim that the 
embryo passes through all the lower forms of animal 
life during its primary developmental period. Accord- 
ing to that theory, the embryo of the genus Homo is a 
fish one moment, the next it is a reptile, the next it is a 


126 WHAT IS MAN? 


bird; and so on through the list of imaginary evolu- 
tionary progenitors. Then, if this human embryo should 
be lost during one of these transitional stages, it would 
be only a fish, a reptile, or a bird, and not a human soul 
at all. Shocking! And yet, such nonsense is called 
science by some people. The laws relative to infanticide 
recognize no such fallacy. 

To say the least, it is astonishing that educated men 
should cater to or advance such fictitious creations, purely 
imaginary, and pass them off as scientific deductions. 
The scientific fact is that when the two vital elements, 
two correlated vital elements, whether they be human or 
animal, fuse and kindle a new vital principle, a new being 
is conceived; and if it be the human vital elements that 
fuse, a new soul is conceived. It is a miniature human 
being. It is a human being just as much the first min- 
ute as it will be at the end of nine months, or the end of 
gestation. The vital principle of the genus Homo never 
developed any other than a human being at any time or 
stage of development. 

The vital principle of the genus is the agent to build 
a temple like unto the one in which the vital elements 
were constructed, and which, when fused, kindled the 
new vital principle, which, in its entirety, constitutes the 
new being, the body being only its habitation. One genus 
cannot construct a vital element which will fuse with a 
vital element of another genus and thereby produce a 
vital principle, as stated before. 

If any man thinks this is theory only, he can test it 
by all the known facts of nature. It is suggested that 
he turn on the arc-light of the most severe tests of natural 
history. This is no mere theory; it is the actual and 
verified truth, the naked facts of the case, as substan- 
tiated by five thousand years of written history, and 
we know not how many years of unwritten history, and 
is in harmony with all nature. There is no known ex- 
ception. 

It cannot be denied that the theory of pangenesis is 
quite popular to-day. Many of our M.D.’s and natural- 
ists, and even D.D.’s, hold to that theory, because it seems 
to be a necessary accompaniment to the Darwinian theory 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 127 


of evolution. The heresy has taken root, as one heresy 
nearly always gives rise to another heresy, to bolster up 
the first. 

Prof. Huxley says: “Bichat rendered a solid service 
to physiological progress by insisting upon the fact (?) 
that what we call life, in one of the higher animals, is 
not an individual unitary archeus dominating, from its 
central seat, the parts of the organism, but a compound 
result of the synthesis of the separate lives of those 
parts.” 

“All animals are assemblages of different organs, each 
of which performs its functions and concurs, after a 
fashion, in the preservation of the whole. They are so 
many special machines in the general machine which 
constitutes the individual. But each of these machines 
is itself compounded of many tissues, which in truth 
constitutes the elements of those organs.” 

No fault whatever is to be found with the last propo- 
sition ; it states an anatomical and physiological fact. But 
the proposition that Bichat insisted on as a fact—when 
he said that what we call life in the higher animals is a 
compound result of the synthesis of the separate lives of 
the parts—will bear investigation and discussion. This is 
a plain statement of the pangenetic theory of life. At 
best it is only partially true, and, as a whole, it is mis- 
leading and false, as we shall see. 

Prof. Huxley continues to say: “The proposition of 
Descartes that the body of a living man is a machine, 
the actions of which are explicable by the known laws 
of matter and motion, is unquestionably true. But it is 
also true that the living body is a synthesis of innumer- 
‘able physiological elements, each of which may be de- 
scribed in Wolff’s words as a fluid possessed of a ‘vis 
essentialis’ and ‘solidescibilitas’; or, in modern phrase, 
as protoplasm susceptible of structural metamorphosis 
and functional metabolism; and that the only machinery, 
in the precise sense in which the Cartesian school under- 
stood mechanism, is that which co-ordinates and regu- 
lates these physiological units into an organic whole.” 

Prof. Huxley here acknowledges the presence of a “vis 
essentialis.” What is that? It is the essential force or 


128 WHAT IS MAN? 


power ; it is exactly the same thing as the vital principle, 
the essential force. He never says a word more about 
it, but dwells on the “solidescibilitas,” a material sub- 
stance capable of being molded into shape—by what? By 
this ‘“‘vis essentialis,’ which is the vital force or vital 
principle, and is the essential thing in the proceeding. 
In the next breath, however, he does away with the es- 
sential force altogether, and pleads that the living body 
is a synthesis of innumerable physiological elements, from 
which the life of the body is furnished. Why call it the 
‘‘vis essentialis,”’ if it is not the essential thing in the living 
body? If the “vis essentialis” is not the essential of life, 
pray tell me what force it is that operates to produce the 
synthesis, if synthesis there be? You certainly cannot 
look for the effect until after the essential cause has 
acted. After the machine is started, then the innumer- 
able physiological elements contribute and concur in 
prolonging the action of the machine; not by furnishing 
motor power, but by furnishing the products necessary 
for the metabolic process, in the preparation of a proper 
fuel for the ‘‘vis essentialis” to use in the repair of waste. 
Now, the great question is, what started the machine to 
running? It must have been this “vis essentialis,” or 
else it is not the essential force. It is well named “vis 
essentialis,”’ because it is the essential thing in the living 
body—it is not found in the dead body. 

Now read again our definition of life and compare it 
with this “vis essentialis.” Life is a dynamis residing 
latently and primarily in the ovum, which, being set in 
motion by the fusing of the sexual elements, in a suitable 
environment, acts and perpetuates itself by integration and 
disintegration of the molecules composing its individual, 
organic habitat, without destroying its individuality; and 
is controlled and rendered effective by coordination. 

We have shown conclusively in these pages that this 
element, life, or the vital principle, is the first element 
appearing in the new embryo or new being. What syn- 
thesis was there previous to this? If synthesis cannot 
produce life, it cannot prolong it. Can you call the com- 
ing together of the sexual elements a synthesis? It is 
simply and only a coincidence. 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 129 


The body of a living man is a great, complex machine, 
composed of several complex machines, and run by this 
“vis essentialis.”” This motor power may be perpetuated 
or renewed from time to time by proper fuel which we call 
food. The physiological action of the different organs, 
machines in the great machine, furnishes the necessary 
solvents to reduce the “solidescibilitas,’ the food, into 
proper form for its use. Reciprocity is the principle in 
the government. It takes all the sub-machines to make 
the one great machine ; but the great machine was started 
running, and continued running by the “vis essentialis,” or 
vital principle. 

Prof. Huxley further illustrates by saying: “In fact, 
the body is a machine of the nature of an army, not of 
that of a watch or a hydraulic apparatus. Of this army 
each cell is a soldier; an organ, a brigade; the central 
nervous system, headquarters and field telegraph; the 
alimentary and circulatory systems, the commissariat. 
The losses are made good by recruits born in camp, and 
the life of the individual is a campaign, conducted suc- 
cessfully for a number of years, but with certain defeat 
in the long run.” 

The simile is pleasing, but not perfect; it is only super- 
ficially true. However, let us follow it and see what 
there is in it for us. The army would be of no effect 
if it did not have a commander. If each individual unit 
was left to itself, no concerted action would result, so 
that a commander is an actual necessity. Where does the 
authority of the army come from? From the state send- 
ing out the army. Then, as an army, that body can 
only be maintained and used by virtue of the authority 
of the state, executed by the commander. Say the com- 
mander has divided his army into brigades, regiments 
and companies, all having different duties to perform, 
each division being commissioned to do certain work. 
They all move at his command. He is the “archeus en- 
throned” of the army—metaphorically, the life of the 
army. If the commander is an impotent man, a va- 
cillating man of little motor force, little execution will 
result, and the army may disintegrate and cease to be 
an effective force. Or if any division of the army fails 


130 WHAT IS MAN? 


to do its duty, the whole army is thrown into confusion 
and rendered liable to instant defeat. 

Just so with life in the animal body. There is a gen- 
eral commanding officer, the “vis essentialis,” or vital 
principle; and the cell, representing the individual sol- 
dier, moves by his command, i.e., his stimulus. Each 
organ, representing a squad or a brigade, has its special 
duty to perform, because of its endowment. The func- 
tional activity of all the organs of the body is due to 
the stimulus received from the central nervous system. 
If each squad (organ) does its full duty, the army will 
be active and robust, full of life; but if one vital organ 
fails to do its duty, the whole system (army) is thrown 
into confusion and rendered liable to instant defeat. So 
that, in turn, these organs do help to support life, not 
because of their contribution of any portion of this “vis 
essentialis,”’ or vital principle, but because the effect of 
the accomplishment of their duty is to produce a sub- 
stance that contributes directly to the sustenance of life 
by completing metabolism, and furnishing a proper “soli- 
descibilitas,” thereby keeping the central nervous system, 
the commander, in full vigor. That’s their duty; but 
they can do nothing without the stimulus of the com- 
mander, much less furnish a contribution to the life- 
force or the “vis essentialis.” They are the servant and 
not the master of ceremonies. You may cut off a man’s 
legs and arms, and by so doing remove a large number 
of soldiers (cells), but the man still lives. But penetrate 
a certain spot in the medulla oblongata with a needle- 
point, and life will go out like a flash. Do not cut off 
his arms and legs, but with a knife sever the nervous 
trunks that supply this essential force to the vital organs, 
and see how quickly they will perish forever, because 
they are cut off from the source of their life; but the 
man still lives, and will continue to live until this life- 
force is dethroned. So that life in the animal body is, 
after all, an “individual archeus enthroned,” as much so 
as the commander of the army. And the life goes out 
when that archeus is dethroned, or ceases to act. 

The simile is not perfect because, with an army, all 
action is without, and is directed toward destroying the 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 131 


enemy; whereas, in the animal body composed of cells, 
life is struggling to conserve its own forces. All action 
is within, and instead of plying all its energy to destroy 
the enemy, each cell or aggregation of cells do their life- 
work by preserving and conserving the organism as a 
whole, all being stimulated to action by this “vis essen- 
tialis,” the “individual archeus enthroned.” 

The simile is not perfect because each soldier in the 
army, representing a cell in the body, has a battery of 
his own that supplies him with motor force. In that 
sense he is a sovereign. He is not dependent upon the 
commander for his life-force that actuates his bodily func- 
tions, but only as an integer in the movement of the 
army; his commander may die and yet the soldier live. 
Not so with the cell; when the commander dies, the cell 
dies also. Consequently, the soldier does not stand in 
the same relation to the army that the cell does to the 
body. The soldier is commanded to do a certain duty; 
he executes the order by virtue of the exercise of his 
own life-force, and not the life-force communicated to 
him by the commander. The cell performs its duty by 
virtue of the life-force, or the “vis essentialis” supplied to 
it by and through the central nervous system; in the cen- 
tral station of which this archeus is enthroned, and is 
the source of all motor power. 

This view is sustained by physiological research and 
experiment. The following quotation from ‘“Kirkes’ 
Handbook of Physiology” establishes the proposition that 
life in the animal body has a central location, a central 
seat, which if disturbed by shock or compression, or 
wounded, results in death of the animal: 

“It has been proved by repeated experiments on the 
lower animals that the entire brain may be gradually 
cut away in successive portions, and yet life may con- 
tinue for a considerable time, the respiratory movements 
being uninterrupted. Life may also continue when the 
spinal cord is cut away in successive portions from be- 
low upwards as high as the point of the origin of the 
phrenic nerve. In amphibia, the brain has been all re- 
moved from above, and the cord, as far as the bulb, from 
below ; and so long as this remains intact, respiration and 


132 WHAT IS MAN? 


life are maintained. But if, in any animal, the bulb is 
wounded, particularly if it is wounded in its central part, 
opposite the origin of the vagi, the respiratory move- 
ments cease, and the animal dies, asphyxiated. And this 
effect ensues even when all parts of the nervous system, 
except the bulb, are left intact. 

“Injury and disease in men prove the same as experi- 
ments on animals. Numerous instances are reported in 
which injury to the bulb has produced instantaneous 
death ; and indeed it is through injury of it, or of the part 
of the cord connecting it with the origin of the phrenic 
nerve, that death is commonly produced in fractures at- 
tended by sudden displacement of the upper cervical 
vertebre.”’ 

Prof. Kirkes is a high authority on physiology, and 
no man has ever challenged the truthfulness of the above 
quotation. Thus it appears a well-established fact that 
life in the higher animals is an individual, unitary archeus 
dominating, from its central seat, all parts of the organ- 
ism. If life is not of central origin, essentially an arch- 
eus dominating from its central seat all parts of the 
organism, but a compound result of the synthesis of the 
separate lives of the several parts, why should it cease 
to be? Why should it go out when a certain central 
portion of the bulb is injured? 

Now, in view of the demonstrated fact that life is an 
archeus enthroned in a central seat, and is not a com- 
pound result of the synthesis of the separate lives of dif- 
ferent parts of the animal body, in what sense did Bichat 
render a solid service to physiological progress by in- 
sisting (not proving his proposition at all, mark you) 
that what we call life in one of the higher animals is 
not an archeus enthroned in a central seat, etc.? Is ita 
possibility to render a solid service to any form of scien- 
tific research by insisting upon a proposition that is at 
variance with the truth? Indeed, the very opposite of the 
truth, as proven by numerous experiments, as Prof. 
Kirkes says it has. Doubtless both Bichat and Prof. 
Huxley belong to that class of scientists who have en- 
deavored to reduce all physiological causation to a set 
of material conditions, maintaining that life depends en- 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 133 


tirely on organization, and that the hypothesis of a vital 
principle is consequently unnecessary and unphilosophical. 
Descartes belonged to another school, who have recog- 
nized the physical and chemical agencies in the living 
body, and have maintained that vital action is but an- 
other and peculiar manifestation of heat, mechanical 
power, chemical affinity, and the like, and have thus at- 
tempted to break down the barriers between organic and 
inorganic creation, making it appear that the one is the 
outgrowth of the other. This is the real key to the situa- 
tion; their theory of life is the outgrowth from their 
belief in evolution, accounting for life in the animal king- 
dom by chance or spontaneous generation, instead of a 
creation by a Creator. 

Organization is entirely insufficient to account for life, 
else how could you kill a man by shooting him? And 
immediately after death, we may have the organization 
in all perfection; and when there is but the one process 
which continues, viz., decay. If organization accounts 
for life in the body, an organic being could never die, 
so long as the organic form is maintained. If organiza- 
tion accounts for life in the organic body, what power, 
force or process builds the embryo from the single cell, 
the ovum, to the completed organic being? 

During the history of the world, there have been many 
theories advanced as to what constituted life in the ani- 
mal world; but mortal man has never yet been able to 
define it satisfactorily. It would seem actually neces- 
sary, however, that there must be something that goes 
before organization, else we could not have organization. 
- So that there is another element additional to organization 
in order to have life. This other element, for want of 
another name, perhaps, has been called the vital principle 
by some, but the “vis essentialis” suits just as well as a 
name for the life-principle in animal life. 

There is one peculiarity about life that is here worth 
noticing, viz., it is unstable without proper stimulus; it 
is constantly wearing out; it has to be renewed at fre- 
quent intervals. It would seem from this that life is 
really a form of dynatnis. Because of this frequent want 
of renewal, some have said that the blood is the life. 


134 WHAT IS MAN? 


But that is not conclusive, for the life may go out with 
the blood-vessels full of the richest blood. All that is 
known of life in animal or man is that there is a some- 
thing—we call it the vital principle—with a dynamic ac- 
tion, pervading and dominating the organism to the ex- 
tent that the organism can do nothing without it. Life 
has never been identified outside of the organism, and it 
is said not to exist. It is not known if that be true. 

But returning to the main subject, heredity, of which 
this is an essential part, we conclude, as before suggested, 
that heredity is supplementary to the endowment, making 
specific what was before general. For instance, the en- 
dowment of the genus Equus is to construct a horse, but 
heredity steps in to say a large horse, a small horse, or 
a black horse. Thus, by virtue of heredity, one may breed 
for size, shape, color, gait, or disposition, even. If it 
were not for heredity we could have no varieties. It is 
heredity that decorates the male bird with beautiful 
plumage, and not sexual selection, as Darwin claims; 1.é., 
because the female bird admires the gaudy plumage, and 
chooses the male so dressed as her consort, the male is 
bedecked in this beautiful plumage, is his reasoning. 

What possible effect could the admiration of fine deco- 
rations on the personality of the male bird, by the female 
bird, have on the production of more or finer decorations 
on the feathers of the male bird, granting that she could 
and did admire fine feathers on the person of her consort, 
which is very problematical? Common sense tells us that 
it cannot have the remotest effect, inasmuch as man’s ad- 
miration has no effect whatever on his plumage or deco- 
ration. Again, if one male bird, having been picked upon 
by all the females of the species and should as a result 
leave all the progeny of that species, all the male birds 
would be decorated like the father bird was, because of 
the office of heredity. The idea that sexual selection, 
exercised by a female bird, should have the effect to make 
more gatidy the plumage of the male birds of the brood, 
from that of the father bird to a more elaborate bedeck- 
ing of the feathers of the young birds, is moonshine. 
Sexual selection is a myth, quite as much as we have 
shown natural selection to be. Would the fact that a 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 135 


female bird chose a certain male bird for her consort, 
add one feather or one tint on a feather already there, 
in the decoration of the male progeny? If so, why should 
it not add to the decoration of the female birds of the 
same brood? Is sexual selection so discriminative that 
it can tell a male bird from a female bird in the same 
brood? That is on a level with powers ascribed to 
natural selection, as we have seen. Why, certainly it 
would not fulfil the calling of the idol if it did not per- 
form the miraculous. Because the female bird is not at 
all affected, but looks like the mother bird; and the male 
birds looks like its father bird, it shows plainly that it 
is heredity at work, and that sexual selection has nothing 
whatever to do with the decoration of either the male 
or the female bird. There is an absolute lack of ade- 
quate causation in “sexual selection.”’ It is a myth. 

“The survival of the fittest” is also a myth—a mere 
sentimentality. Do the fittest always survive all others 
of their kind? Test it in society—does it hold good? 
From all the higher standards of our civilization, were 
not the Greeks more fit to survive than the Romans? 
Yet the Greeks went down and out before the avalanche 
of Roman aggression, not because the Romans were the 
fittest, but because they outnumbered the Greeks, and 
because might made right. What possible effect could 
“the survival of the fittest” have had on the originof Man? 
The paternal grandfather of Man, the gorilla, still lives. 
The coming of Man did not affect him in the least. “The 
struggle for life,” however, is a reality. There is some- 
thing to it, as all can testify. This struggle has been 
waged since the creation; but did you ever know it to 
‘give birth to a new genus? It has wiped out many a 
specimen, but it never produced anything new. This 
is another formula for egoism; it is egoism, pure and 
simple; and as such it is the antipode of altruism, without 
which there would have been no others. 

Heredity is a very great factor in animal life. I quote 
the following pithy article written by Professor Cuénot, of 
the University of Nancy, France: 

“The fact must be insisted on that the substance of the 
individual is the sum of the two germs furnished by the 


136 WHAT IS MAN? 


parents. Now, there is no doubt that our good qualities 
and our defects are both dependent on material structure. 
Education and the influence of environment may perhaps 
modify this heredity, but to what extent? Here is a 
grave and difficult problem of moral responsibility, which 
confronts us so often in the courts and in society. 

“The hereditary descent of all sorts of characteristics 
has long been noticed. It has been felt that there must 
be rules to regulate it, and attempts have been made to 
discover them. Of recent years the application of the 
experimental method has thrown a bright light on these 
phenomena. We may refer here to the fundamental ex- 
periment represented in the diagram (Fig. 1)—crossing 
of gray with white mice. 





Figg, 


“The common gray mouse and the white or albino 
mouse are both well known. When these two forms are 
crossed, the offspring are like the gray parent—and we 
may say that there is no dominance of the gray character- 
istics ; the white is hidden by the other and is dominated 
or latent. But continue the experiment; crossing the 
two hybrids we have not only gray mice, but also white 
ones, fewer in number. If the crossing be continued we 
find that there are always three grays to one white. 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 137 


“How shall we interpret this? Here is the hypothesis: 
The paternal elements cannot fuse together; they remain 
separate, half being gray (G), half being white (B). 
When we cross the hybrids we may thus have four com- 
binations : 

ies ae gray soit te a 
ray ><. white pil 

White X gray ue (GB). 

White X white = (BB). 

“These four combinations will give the following re- 

sults : 
Gray X gray = gray of pure breed. 
Gray X white ) = gray of impure breed, like the 
White X gray ‘ parent hybrids. 
White & white = white of pure blood. 
“We may express this result more briefly as follows: 
CoP Cat OL CSCS com tats sc DS. 
which corresponds to the results of experience. 

“The next figure shows the test of this theory. Cross- 

ing a gray mouse of impure blood, containing the white 


a, 





Fig. 2. | 


138 WHAT IS MAN? 


breed in the latent state, we have an equal number of 
grays and whites. This is because only two combinations 
were possible: 


Gray X white = gray of impure breed (GB). 
White X white = white of impure breed (BB). 


“Very long and delicate experiments give results that 
conform so well to the theoretical predictions that there 
must be some truth in the hypothesis; the phenomenon 
seems widely extended both in the animal and vegetable 
worlds. If it be true, Man has the wonderful power of 
being able to transmit to his children not only his visible 
or dominant qualities, but equally a host of latent charac- 
teristics that he may possess. 

“The third figure represents the crossing of a white, 
red-eyed mouse with another red-eyed mouse having a 





Ooooool|’ 


Fic. 3. ° 
tawny yellow coat. We shall expect to find hybrids all 
with red eyes, like the parents, and with yellow or white 
skin ; but this is not the case. The result is rather paradox- 
ical; the descendants all have black eyes, gray backs, 
and whitish bellies, while their eyes are certainly larger 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 139 


than those of their parents. Instead of presenting the 
phenomena of dominance, the partial characteristics have 
combined to produce a new result. When crossed again, 
these hybrids produce a strange variety of forms: One 
black mouse; two gray mice with whitish bellies like their 
parents; three white mice with red eyes, like one grand- 
parent; four yellow mice with red eyes; five pearl-gray 
mice with red eyes. They have fixed numerical relations 
which appear as follows: 


é 2 black. 
8 with black eyes 1 6 gray with white bellies. 


4 white. 
8 with red eyes { 3 yellow. 
I pearl-gray. 


There has taken place a separation of characteristics and 
also a decomposition, resulting in absolutely new forms.” 

The important thing for the reader to remember in this 
connection is the fact that though there may have been 
produced absolutely new forms in this series of crossings, 
nevertheless the progeny are all mice—no new genera 
have been produced. He bred mice and got mice as a 
result, though the varieties were increased. 

“Fig. 3. Crossing of white mouse (white circle) and 
yellow mouse with red eyes (horizontal shading). The 
hybrids are black (black circle), gray with white bellies 
(dotted circle), and pearl-gray with red eyes (vertical 
shading), besides others like the original parents. 

“Almost every one has either visible blemishes or 
latent tendencies to disease, which last are as important 
as the first from the point of view of transmission, as we 
have seen. If you wish, so far as you can, to accomplish 
it, that your children should remain untouched, avoid 
marriage with families that have blemishes or tendencies 
similar to yours. I am fully aware that advice is easier 
to give than to follow. Man, who has been applying for 
centuries processes of selection to his domestic animals, 
has not understood that he might apply the same to his 
descendants with advantage. Nevertheless, robust health 
and safe inheritance is better than a dowry, as we may 
well believe,” 


140 WHAT IS MAN? 


It is the fashion nowadays to blame heredity for the 
defects of childhood—all the nutritional and constitu- 
tional diseases affecting childhood, as well as many or 
even all criminal tendencies in youths. Surgeons are 
performing operations on the heads of young criminals 
to “relieve undue pressure on the brain and thereby cure 
(?) the patient of the tendency to crime.” But is it true 
that these things are expressions of heredity? The con- 
sensus of advanced opinion is that it is not. There is a 
growing opinion that ‘““Nature seeks to give every child a 
fair start and a healthy body, as eighty to ninety per cent. 
are born healthy. Even the poorest and most ill-nurtured 
women bring forth as hale and strong-looking babies as 
those in the very best condition. The deterioration begins 
later, from the influence of environment. 

“Biologically, the first years of life are supremely im- 
portant—they are the foundation years; and just as the 
stability of a building must depend largely upon the care 
and skill with which the foundations are laid, so life and 
character depend in a large measure upon the years of 
childhood and the care bestowed upon them. For mil- 
lions of children, the whole of life is conditioned by the 
first few years. The period of infancy is a time of ex- 
treme plasticity. Proper care and nutrition at this period 
of life are of vital importance, for the evil arising from 
neglect, insufficient food, or food that is unsuitable, can 
never be remedied. 

“The problem of the child is the problem of the race, 
and more and more emphatically science declares that 
almost all problems of physical, mental and moral de- 
generacy originate with the child. The physician traces 
the weakness and disease of the adult to defective nutri- 
tion in early childhood; the penologist traces moral per- 
version to the same cause; the pedagogue finds the same 
explanation for his failures. Thanks to the many notable 
investigations made in recent years, especially in Euro- 
pean countries, sociologic science is being revolutionized. 
Hitherto we have not studied the great and pressing prob- 
lem of pauperism and criminology from the child end; 
we have concerned ourselves almost entirely with results 


EMBRYOLOGY AND HEREDITY 141 


while ignoring causes. The new spirit aims at preven- 
tion. 

“Though the children of the poor may enter upon life 
as well prepared to fight its battles as those of the rich, 
they very soon fall behind, and the main causes are 
under-feeding and neglect. If the mothers nurse them, 
the milk is scanty and poor in quality, because the mothers 
themselves are underfed; but in the vast majority of cases 
the mothers have to leave home to work, and the babies 
are relegated to the care of the other children of the 
family. This combination of insufficient nourishment and 
neglect, together with bad housing and clothing, bring a 
blight upon the children of the poor, and they die in large 
numbers, while those that survive are victims of various 
diseases which might be avoided or overcome in more 
hygienic surroundings, and which are avoided or over- 
come by the children of the well-to-do. Mortality differs 
very greatly in different social conditions. 

“Wolff, in his classic studies based upon the vital sta- 
tistics of Erfurt for a period of twenty years, found that 
for every 1,000 children born in working-class families, 
505 died the first year; among the middle classes, 173, 
and among the higher classes only 89. Of every 1,000 
illegitimate children registered—almost entirely of the 
poorer classes—325 died before the end of the first year. 
Dr. Charles R. Drysdale, senior physician of the Metro- 
politan Free Hospital, London, declared some years ago 
that the death rate of infants among the rich was not 
more than 8 per cent., while among the very poor it was 
often as high as 40 per cent. Dr. Playfair says that 18 
per cent. of the children of the upper classes ; 36 per cent. 
of the tradesman class, and 55 per cent. of those of the 
working-class, die under the age of five years. 

“And yet the experts say that the baby of the tenement 
is born physically equal to the baby of the mansion. For 
countless years men have sung the Democracy of Death, 
but it is only recently that science has brought us the 
more inspiring message of the Democracy of Birth. It 
is not only in the tomb that we are equal—where there is 
neither rich nor poor, bond nor free—but also in the 
mother’s womb. Ali birth class distinctions are unknown, 


142 WHAT IS MAN? 


“For long the hope-crushing thought of the prenatal 
hunger, the thought that the mother’s hunger was shared 
by the unborn child, and that poverty began its blighting 
work on the child even before its birth, held us in its 
thrall. The thought that past generations have innocently 
conspired against the well-being of the child of to-day, 
and that this generation in its turn conspires against the 
future, is surcharged with the pessimism which mocks 
every ideal and stifles every hope born in the soul. Noth- 
ing more horrible ever cast its shadow over the hearts 
of those who would labor for the world’s redemption from 
poverty than this specter of prenatal privation and in- 
herited debility. But science comes in to dispel the gloom 
and bid us hope. Over and over again it was stated 
before the Interdepartmental Committee by the leading 
authorities of the English medical profession that the 
proportion of the children born healthy and strong is not 
greater among the rich than the poor. The differences 
appear after birth. Wise and patient Mother Nature pro- 
vides with each succeeding generation opportunity to 
overcome the evils of ages of ignorance and wrong; with 
each generation the world starts afresh and unhampered, 
physically, at least, by the dead past.” (Selected.) 


CHAPTER VI 
THE SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 


WE will not stop to discuss the origin of the universe 
at large, or even that of the world in which we live. 
Those questions include the one we are discussing, as the 
greater includes the lesser. The one is germane to the 
other, and either, on being solved, offers a solution for 
the other, as there can be no doubt that the author of the 
one is the author of the other; that is to say, the same 
Cause that produced the universe as a whole, or the 
earth as a part, operated to produce the human race. The 
same Creator created the world and all that in it is. 
There must have been an adequate cause for either, as 
nothing exists without having an adequate cause. It is 
simply amazing that men, posing as scientists, should ad- 
vocate the doctrine that chance operated in the production 
of the world or the animal kingdom, including the human 
race. Or if not chance, then a wholly inadequate cause 
in the form of a supposed law of nature. We go right 
back of that and ask: What produced nature and its 
laws? Dr. Haeckel uses the expression, “spontaneous 
creation.” How could such a thing be? It is a plain 
contradiction of terms. Creation necessitates a Creator; 
while spontaneity presupposes action by its own impulse 
or energy, without external force. That would mean 
self-creation—an absurdity. The question of creation can- 
not be comprehended by the finite mind, and so that 
question is unsolvable by Man. 

While the mind cannot comprehend the infinite any 
more than it can comprehend space or time, and can only 
approach its comprehension by applying to it some of 
the attributes of the finite, our common sense tells us that 
the antithesis of the finite is the infinite. While Philoso- 

143 


144 WHAT IS MAN? 


phy claims that it is possible to comprehend the relative, 

the absolute is beyond the power of the mind; yet our 
common sense tells us plainly that if there is a relative 
there must be a reality. So that if there is a finite, just 
as truly, and for the same reason, there must be an in- 
finite as well as a relative; and all the philosophies extant, 
which would convince us that we really or absolutely 
know nothing, that all our knowledge is naught but a 
negation, cannot satisfy the mind that there is not in the 
universe an infinite, absolute, First Cause, and which 
operated to bring into existence all the phenomena of 
matter and life. 

We may speculate upon the question and say as Laplace 
did, that this earth is the result of molecules of gaseous, 
cosmic matter of a high degree of temperature, being 
thrown off from a rapidly revolving mass of widely ex- 
tended vapor, when, because of the loss of heat and the 
resulting contraction of this spheroidal mass, and the 
consequent increase of rotary motion of the mass, the 
centrifugal force overcame the law of attraction, and 
threw these nebular bodies from the mass into space, in 
the shape or form of revolving rings. These nebular 
rings kept up the motion that had been imparted to them, 
and gradually coalesced as they cooled off and solidi- 
fied, and eventually formed what is now the earth and 
all the rest of the planets. But that is all speculation; it 
may be true or not. It would seem a little peculiar that 
gaseous matter, heated to such an extreme and intense 
heat as would be necessary to change the solid matter of 
which the earth is now composed, into a gas, would not 
become dissipated instead of solidifying into a solid mass 
of matter in the shape of the earth. Besides that, we 
are compelled to ask from whence came this revolving 
mass of cosmic matter? We are no nearer to a solution 
of the question than when we started. Here is an attempt 
to form the world on mechanical principles; it cannot be 
done. Already Laplace’s hypothesis is declared to be un- 
tenable by astronomers, and a new hypothesis is brought 
forward to take its place, in the way of a mechanical 
formation of the world. In this new theory they also beg 
the question by assuming the original mass of cosmic 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 145 


matter, and only differ from Laplace’s theory in the 
original shape of the nebule thrown off from the mass. 
I quote from the Literary Digest the following: 

“Some of the difficulties in the way of the old nebular 
hypothesis of Laplace, and the new theory that is grad- 
ually coming to be accepted by astronomers in its stead, 
are stated and explained by J. E. Gore in Knowledge and 
Scientific News (London, September, 1906). In Laplace’s 
hypothesis—for years the only ‘nebular theory’—the origi- 
nal mass from which our solar system was derived was 
regarded as a great globe of gas (or, in later forms of 
the theory, of meteor-swarms), with its center where the 
sun now is, and extending as far as the most distant 
planet. Slowly rotating, this mass threw off rings as it 
gradually contracted by its own gravitation, and these 
rings eventually consolidated into planets and satellites, 
Of this theory, Dr. Gore says: 

“*For some years past it has become increasingly evi- 
dent that the hypothesis must be abandoned for something 
in better agreement with the modern telescopic discov- 
eries, The idea that the planets were formed by the con- 
densation of rings detached from a nebulous mass is a 
hypothesis for which we find no warrant in the heavens. 
Laplace’s idea of a nebular hypothesis was probably sug- 
gested by a consideration of Saturn’s rings. But modern 
researches on tidal action tend to show that this wonder- 
ful system was not originally formed as a ring left behind 
by Saturn during the progress of condensation from the 
nebulous stage. More probably the matter composing 
the rings was originally separated from the planet in one 
mass. . . . We see in the heavens numerous forms 
of nebule—spiral nebule, planetary nebulz, etc.—but 
there is no real example of a ring nebula. Those which 
have been termed annular nebulz are mostly spiral nebule 
seen foreshortened. 

““To any one who still persists in maintaining the 
theory of ring formations in nebule it may be said that 
the whole heavens are against him. The original idea 
was that the detached rings would break up into separate 
fragments, which would afterward—by mutual attraction 
—consolidate into planets. But a mathematical investiga- 


146 WHAT IS MAN? 


tion recently undertaken by an American mathematician, 
John N. Stockwell, shows that two such fragments will 
approach each other by attraction only until they are 
sixty degrees apart, and that they will then continue 
to revolve about the primary body at this distance. Thus 
the fragments of a ruptured ring would not ultimately 
consolidate as required by Laplace’s theory. 

“‘Compelled, therefore, as we apparently are, to aban- 
don Laplace’s nebular hypothesis in its original form, are 
we, therefore, obliged to relinquish all attempts to ex- 
plain the formation of suns and solar systems from the 
consolidation of gaseous matter? By no means. The 
heavens, which are clearly against Laplace’s hypothesis, 
are strongly in favor of a new theory, a new cosmogony, 
which will probably stand the test of mathematical analy- 
sis, This is the evolution [he is evidently tarred with 
the same stick] of suns and systems from spiral nebulz 
discovered with the Crossley reflector. A large portion 
are spiral, and a study of these remarkable and inter- 
esting objects will probably form an important portion 
of the work of future astronomers. 

“*The new cosmogony will, of course, raise many very 
difficult questions in celestial mechanics, and will give a 
considerable amount of work to mathematical astronomers 
before it can be placed upon a satisfactory basis; but 
the work which has been done already by Chamberlin 
and Moulton shows clearly that the spiral theory is far 
superior to Laplace’s nebular hypothesis, which should 
now be definitely abandoned and consigned to the limbo 
of unproved theories. The heavens show us thousands 
of spiral nebulz, which are evidently in a state of rota- 
tion round a central nucleus, but which will probably take 
ages before they have finally consolidated into suns and 
solar systems. But ages are but moments in the evolution 
of the stars, and we need not expect to find evidence of 
rotation and consolidation during the brief span of human 
history. Empires rise and fall, dynasties are founded and 
dissolved, but the heavens move on in their silent course, 
and the human race will probably have perished before 
the universe has reached its final destiny.’ ” 

From the above, it would seem that Laplace’s “nebular 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 147 


hypothesis” had received a “knock-out” blow, and that 
the new theory of “spiral nebule,” set up to take its place 
in “celestial mechanics,” will probably receive the same 
treatment in the future. Thus we may keep on speculat- 
ing as to the cosmogony of the universe, but we know 
nothing of this period of the world’s history, save only 
what we have been told, viz.: “In the beginning, God 
created the heavens and the earth.” This statement has 
stood and will stand all tests. It is the only statement— 
I will not call it a theory—that has an adequate cause 
back of it. 

Not until we arrived at the period when geological 
time began to tick off the centuries and perhaps eons of 
time, as marked by the formation of the earth’s strata, 
can we tell anything about the formation of the earth; 
and geological time is very hard to compute in minutes, 
hours, days, months and years. 

Perhaps the strongest evidence that can be adduced, 
to prove that the earth had a beginning, is exhibited by 
geology in the superimposed strata of the earth’s crust. 
After the beginning of geological time, periods aremarked 
in the crust of the earth, and these show something of 
what occurred after that time, but not all, by any means; 
they are also silent as to what took place prior to this 
time. So that as to what took place before geological 
time began we are absolutely ignorant. From that time 
we begin to read history, though very imperfectly. We 
can only approximate—scarcely that—the different catas- 
trophes and cataclysms that have since occurred. As to 
the years, as measured in our time, they cannot be even 
approximately told. But these catastrophes and revolu- 
tions probably changed the shape of the earth’s crust from 
its original form. In this way the oceans and continents 
were bounded, and the mountains and valleys were 
formed. 

It would seem that all must admit the eternal existence 
of either the universe or its Creator. If we deny the ex- 
istence of the Creator, we assume that the universe always 
existed, or else that it created itself from nothing, i.e., 
‘‘spontaneous creation”; or that it was an accident. 

Mr. Drummond says: “There is but one theory of the 


148 WHAT IS MAN? 


origin of the universe in the field, and that is creation.” 
Logically, then, we must admit that there must have been 
a Creator, and that He preceded and caused the universe 
to come forth, and that He is eternal. We can only say, 
then, that the universe was created by a competent 
creative power, which is God, the Supreme Power of the 
Universe. 

It is quite possible that all, save, perhaps, the most 
thorough-going evolutionist, will agree that the same 
Supreme Power of the Universe, whatever that power 
is, or is called, brought into being the animate world, 
whether animal or vegetable. That is to say, the same 
cause acted to bring forth the animate world that acted 
to bring forth the inanimate world. The same Creative 
Power that caused matter, caused life on this earth. This 
same Supreme Power caused to exist all that now exists, 
or that has existed in the past, on this terrestrial ball; and 
back of all that, He created the ball. It is manifestly 
impossible that anything pertaining to the earth or the 
fullness thereof could have come by chance, or, as some 
philosophers (?) would say, by spontaneous creation— 
which means that, whether it be matter or life, it created 
itself. | | gid 

Now, did this intelligent, Supreme, Creative Power of 
the Universe create the earth and all that in it is, and, 
metaphorically speaking, wind it up for all time and then 
abandon the product to let it take care of itself, He 
sitting by as an uninterested spectator, or gone off on a 
vacation? Or, rather, on the other hand, is not this in- 
telligent, Supreme, Creative Power giving His attention 
to His creatures constantly, holding the destinies of all 
things, nations and peoples, as it were, in the hollow of 
His hand, marking even the sparrow’s fall, and keeping 
in perfect harmony all the various laws of so-called 
nature? Are not what we call the laws of nature only 
the expression of the changeless will of God, the Creator? 

The evolutionist beholds the material world and says: 
“That is all there is to it. It came about spontaneously, 
is here, and we are running it while we are here.” And 
so he deals with the material world, in all its ever-chan- 
ging aspects, on mechanical principles, making use of a 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 149 


dynamis that he knows not what it is or whence it came— 
neither does he care. It was here when he came and will 
be here when he goes; but while he is here he proposes to 
bridle it, and judge of it, interpret it, by its material as- 
pects and its action. Thus he attempts to build the world, 
animate and inanimate, by mechanical formule, on me- 
chanical principles, embellished with all manner of 
imaginary interpolations, alone. In the animate world, 
the material and mechanical parts are necessary to the 
identity of the individuality and its existence as such; 
but the material and mechanical parts cannot exist with- 
out the “‘vis essentialis,”’ or vital principle, and, so far as 
we know, the vital principle cannot exist without the 
material and mechanical. The two are mutual necessities 
to each other in the living body. The “vis essentialis” only 
purports to be the necessary element to the living body, 
while the material and mechanical are both present in the 
dead body. So that there is a wide realm, a world outside 
of the material world, that is quite as essential to our 
being as the material world. Indeed, the outer or material 
world is only the expression of the inner or spiritual - 
world; only the tenement in which the real being dwells. 
The invisible man, the ego, unseen by the material! eye, 
and within the body of clay, is the real man; and not the 
physical entity which we see with our material eyes. 

Mr. Henry Drummond has this thought, which is apro- 
pos just here. “The tree is a thought, a unity, a rational, 
purposeful whole; the ‘matter’ is the medium of their 
expression. Call it matter, energy, tree—a physical pro- 
duction, and have we yet touched its ultimate reality? 
Are we quite sure that what we call the physical world is, 
after all, a physical world? The preponderating view 
of science at present is that it is not. The very term 
‘material world,’ we are told, is a misnomer; that the 
world is a spiritual world, merely employing ‘matter’ for 
its manifestations.” 

If that view of the world is true, how enormous is the 
misinterpretation of the evolution and the believer in 
pangenesis. The evolutionist does not and cannot con- 
nect the material with the immaterial world. They pass 
the immaterial or spiritual world over as being beyond 


150 WHAT IS MAN? 


their ken, or they take it for granted, if you please. The 
immaterial or spiritual world is here, but how it came or 
whence it came they do not answer, only that it came 
spontaneously. 

The genuine evolutionist knows no Creator; he knows 
no God. But he essays to build the world of animal life 
by mechanical formule on mechanical principles, all the 
time ignoring the spiritual, the vital principle, the dynamis 
of life, as a factor of life at all; but at the same time 
depending upon it to develop his creatures, because with- 
out this dynamis, without the vital principle, there is no 
life. This, again, is cribbing causation by hair-breadths. 
No evolutionist who has ever written has accounted for 
life. That chapter remains unwritten; it is simply ig- 
nored. 

When protoplasm was discovered, something less than 
fifty years ago, they thought they were very close to the 
solution of the enigma of life. With the discovery that 
all living phenomena are manifested in and by the one 
substance, protoplasm, and that protoplasm is capable of 
chemical analysis, disclosing itself to be related to al- 
bumen, it seemed as if they had approached close to their 
goal. But even the biologist, leaning toward evolution, 
must admit that we are certainly more distant to-day 
from its solution than we seemed to be a few years ago. 
This substance, protoplasm, and which was so promising 
and upon which so much was based, has proved, in a 
measure, a delusion. 

To-day we do not know what we mean by protoplasm; 
no such thing as pure protoplasm can be found. We have 
absolutely no knowledge of the simplest life substance. 
We know only living animals and plants. Life, even in 
its simplest condition, is not manifested in any chemical 
compound or mixture of compounds. 

Life is a dynamic force, the vital principle which ani- 
mates the body, and expresses itself through that minute 
but intricate machine which biologists have called the 
cell. Animal life is manifested only in and through this 
machine by the vital principle’s vivifying effect upon its 
structure. The cell, per se, has no life, but is vivified by 
this “vis essentialis,” the vital principle. 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 151 


To understand life, we must be able to form and con- 
struct a machine that will build and endow the vital ele- 
ment—yes, two separate machines that can construct and 
endow two vital elements—the male and the female or 
sexual elements; so constituted as that they will fuse, in 
appropriate environment, and thereby cause the vital prin- 
ciple to blaze up. Have we yet explained life? No! We 
have only approximately explained the expression or 
manifestation of life in the material body. 

Life, so far as yet known, came from but one source— 
from God, the Giver of life. Now it is a fact, as demon- 
strated by geology, that the simpler forms of life came 
first upon the scene of the earth’s evolution. And after 
the simpler forms came the more complex forms, more 
and more complex, until Man was reached. But there is 
absolutely nothing to prove that later complex forms of 
life came out of the older and simpler forms, or that the 
older forms were the progenitors of the later forms, as 
is claimed by the evolutionist. The theory is all assump- 
tion and conjecture, matured and ripened by being retold 
and insisted upon as a truth. On the contrary, it has 
been conclusively shown to be an impossible theory ; and 
the history of the world demonstrates it to be a fallacy. 
Indeed, geology inclines strongly to show that the older 
forms of life were all or very largely extinct before the 
newer or later forms of life appeared; they having been 
swept away by the different cataclysms that swept over 
the earth, by reason of the upheavals and subsidences of 
the earth’s crust, the next period showing new forms of 
life with the new form of the earth’s crust. This, we 
are assured, was repeated many times over. 

It would be natural that the simpler forms of life should 
appear first and the complex forms of life later, instead 
of the complex forms appearing first and the simpler 
forms later. Indeed, we have good reason to believe that 
when the simpler forms of life came, the earth was not 
fitted for the complex forms of life, but only fitted for 
the simpler forms. The complex forms of life could not 
maintain themselves here, at the time the simpler forms 
came upon the earth. But as the changes wrought pro- 
duced a more suitable environment, new and higher forms 


152 WHAT IS MAN? 


of life came suddenly upon the scene, wholly without any 
intermediate, transitional forms of life, which must have 
been the case if the older forms were the progenitors of 
the later forms. It has been conclusively shown that the 
later forms of life could not have come by ordinary de- 
scent from the previous forms of life; there is, then, 
but one other solution of the problem, viz., separate, spe- 
cial creation of the species. This is the only adequate 
solution of the problem. Why is that solution declared 
unreasonable by some and impossible by others? Is it 
not a thousand times more reasonable than to say that 
the newer and higher forms of life came from the older 
forms by natural descent, when the history of the world 
says it is an impossibility? But especially is it an im- 
possible thing if the older forms were all extinct before 
the newer forms of life came upon the scene. But, above 
all other reasons, stands the fact of nature, viz., that it 
is an impossibility for one genus to bring forth another 
genus. That fact alone ought to settle the question. We 
know such to be the case now, and we have every reason 
to believe it has always been the case. 

In the fullness of time, when the earth was fitted for 
Man, when the vegetable world was developed so as to 
sustain human life, and after every other living creature 
had been created, Man came from the hands of the 
Creator, to have dominion over the earth and every living 
creature on this earth. 

The time that elapsed from the date of the appearance 
of those primary and simpler forms of life, until God 
created Man, cannot be even approximately estimated; it 
may have been eons of time. Geology plainly demon- 
strates the fact that the first appearance of animal life 
on the earth was in the most simple of forms—mere 
animalculz ; and that age upon age intervened before Man 
came. ‘The biblical history also distinctly states that Man 
was created the last of all the living creatures. So that 
the findings of geology, so far as they go, distinctly con- 
firm the biblical history of Man. 

It has been boastfully claimed that the science of 
geology confirms and supports the theory of evolution in 
the production of the animal world, because the rocky 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 153 


deposits contain the petrified remains, or the sarcophagi, 
of many of the lower forms of life, among the first rocky 
formations, and do not contain Man’s remains. It cer- 
tainly takes an acute intellect to see a confirmation of 
the theory of evolution in such a statement. If an ex- 
plorer, in his wanderings, should come across the bones 
of some wild animal, would the explorer be justified in 
concluding that Man had been there before him? 

In the above statement, the inference is plain that the 
primary forms of life existed first, and at the time of, or 
before the rocky formations began. This is conceded. 
Geology also demonstrates that there have been none of 
the intermediate, transitional forms of life which Mr. 
Darwin declares there must have been, if h‘s theory is 
true; therefore, that host of intermediate, transitional 
forms of life was a creation of Mr. Darwin’s fertile 
imagination, for the purpose of substantiating his theory. 
Mr. Darwin not only does not claim the support of geolo- 
_gy, but he repudiates it as being so imperfect as to be 
worthless. He says: “The difficulties presented by 
geology to my views are due to the imperfections of 
geological records.” Mr. Darwin also rejects, entirely, 
the view of the author of “The Vestiges,” where he says: 
“The geological record exhibits to us a succession of ani- 
mals corresponding, in progressive development, with the 
foetal development of the mammalian embryo.’ Now, 
geology simply proves that each special form of life ex- 
isted at the time that such special form got caught and 
became imprisoned in the mud which afterward became 
petrified, and thus formed the rocky strata of the earth, 
nothing more. 

The time of the great event of Man’s coming can be 
closely approximated, we think (See Chapter XI), not- 
withstanding the great variance of the numberless 
opinions heretofore given. However, leaving out of the 
question, for the present, when Man came, the fact that 
he came and is here now interests us greatly. And we 
want to find out, if possible, his present status; whether 
he is an accident in animal life, and, therefore, nothing 
more or less than an animal; or the noblest work of God, 
by special creation, and receiving his breath of life direct 


154 WHAT IS MAN? 


from the Creator. The question is not so much of how 
he might have come, but how he did come. 

As to the biblical history of Man, placing his advent 
here at something less than six thousand years ago, we 
have only to say, at present, that the chronology adopted 
by the men who computed the time may not be exact, 
as claimed by some at the time the Bible chronology was 
adopted; but figures show that the estimates given in 
Usher’s chronology tally closely with the event of biblical 
history and are in harmony with some recent discoveries 
made and recorded in profane history, as we shall see. 

But, however long a time ago it was that Man first 
made his appearance here on this earth, we have every 
reason to believe that the stability and permanency of the 
law of descent and heredity has kept him essentially as 
he was when created; at least, in so far as his bodily form 
is concerned. Just here I wish to quote from a lecture 
given by Mr. Frederic Harrison, at Oxford. He was an 
intimate friend and an assistant of Herbert Spencer for 
forty years, but after the death of Spencer he became con- 
vinced of the error of the evolution doctrine. He says: 
“The laws of stability and permanency are equally essen- 
tial and dominant; indeed, they come and apply prior to 
the laws of change. Using the terms in their philosophi- 
cal breadth, order precedes progress, determinesandregu- 
lates it. Progress ts evolution out of order. That is 
to say, the course of every development is irrevocably 
determined when the primordial type is constituted.” 

When the vital elements have fused and thereby caused 
the vital principle, or the “vis essentialis,” if they prefer 
it, to blaze up and constitute the primordial type, that type 
is irrevocably determined. You have seen how great a 
stress is laid on the fact that the difference in these pri- 
mordial forms could not be told with a microscope, and 
therefore construed as proving the contentions of evolu- 
tion, because the special form could not be differentiated. 
Here Mr. Harrison says: “The course of every develop- 
ment is irrevocably determined when the primordial type 
is constituted.” On that great and abiding truth alone our 
contention is safe. But to quote further: “The child 
is father of the man; but the child has all the essential 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 155 


features out of which the man is developed. Stability 
alone can explain man as a loving, sympathetic, social, 
moral and religious.being. This side of man’s nature, the 
largest, most dominant and the most sublime fact in all 
nature, can only be explained by social science, solid 
philosophy and true religion. For all practical purposes 
of reasoning, the great substratum of stability, its laws 
and conditions, are quite essential as the laws of change. 
It is one of the vices of the objective synthesis, that it 
has banished statics from its scheme and concentrated its 
study on dynamics alone. Indeed, it is the intellectual 
and moral disease of our time, to despise everything that 
is not in a constant flux. The philosophy of evolution 
is limited in hypothesis to dynamic laws. The law of 
stability is one of the great and primal laws of the uni- 
verse.” 

Coming from such a source, the above declaration is 
of great import. The truth of his statement cannot be 
controverted. The blind forces of nature, as we have 
heard them called, do not construct new machines, neither 
do they change the form of organic structures; but they 
do produce accurate copies. 

It seems a strange thing to have to say it, but in the 
light of some claims that are made by evolutionists, I 
have to say—Nothing comes by chance in nature; but, on 
the contrary, every organism in the world has had an 
adequate cause for its being. Nevertheless, some have 
tried to show that life had a mysterious origin in the way 
of an accident. Some have said that life may have been 
caused by a kind of fermentation; others assert that life 
was primarily caused by a chemico-electric stimulation— 
whatever that may mean—of a unit of protoplasm, from 
some unknown cause of action. That, necessarily, rele- 
gates it to the realm of the accidental. Think of it—life 
a pure accident in nature! It must be a fearful stretch 
of the imagination to bring one’s self to believe that the 
living organisms, to the number of a quarter of a mil- 
lion of different species, had their origin in an accident. 

Dr. Haeckel, posing as a scientist, says: “JI assume 
that the first monera owe their life or existence to spon- 
taneous creation, out of so-called unorganic combinations, 


156 WHAT IS MAN? 


consisting of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.” 
If he had said: “I assume that the first monera owe their 
existence to creation out of so-called unorganic combina- 
tions consisting of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitro- 
gen,” no fault could be found with his assumption, as 
these four elements constitute all there is to the cell—but 
the cell does not constitute life. You can have the cell 
without life at all, and a perfect mechanical cell, too; but 
it lacks the “vis essentialis” to make it a live moneron. 
These four elements are combined by a special formula 
which no man has been able to decipher or to imitate, 
even after the life-element has departed. 

And, then, if they were created, of course there must 
have been a Creator, an infinite mind that knew how 
to combine the elements and elaborate the product to 
produce the desired result. But he precedes creation with 
the adjective “spontaneous,” which means that these sev- 
eral elements (I might stop to ask whence came these 
elements) acting and reacting on each other, by their 
own impulse, energy, or natural law, without external 
force, produced the thing called life. This certainly rele- 
gates the life-principle to the accidental, and does away 
with a First Cause or a Creator altogether. Then, why 
say creation at all, if they came to life of their own 
motion spontaneously? Was there a cell there before 
there was life? Why did he not say spontaneous genera- 
tion? Because he knows that is not a possible thing. 
Yet he knows that if they were created at all there must 
have been a Creator, which he denies. | 

All efforts to cause life by experimental methods have 
been in vain. I am aware that every once in a while 
there is some one who comes out with the claim that they 
have evolved living organisms from nothing at all, or 
from wholly inanimate matter. If any or all such will read 
Huxley on “Spontaneous Generation” they will conclude 
to let the job out to some other fellow. Even Prof. Hux- 
ley says it is an impossibility. Has Dr. Haeckel any 
right to assume spontaneous creation from a scientific 
standpoint? The scientist professes to assume nothing. 

As has been said before, evolutionists do not and can- 
not account for life at all; therefore they have no ground, 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 157 


no foundation to stand on. True, they always invoke 
the patronage and aid of nature to complete the process 
for them; but that is begging the whole question. Be- 
sides, nature is inexplicable, incomprehensible. It does 
not explain itself, and is not capable of explanation by 
Man. 

They cannot account for Man’s moral faculties by 
their mechanical formule; add heredity and they are 
further than ever from an explanation of Man’s higher 
mental and moral nature. 

In this new, higher living organism is implanted con- 
sciousness, which makes the individuality realize his ex- 
istence, and which also includes memory, joy, remorse, 
love, hate, envy, worship, and a multitude of emotional 
shades and phases of mentality, all of which are entirely 
unknown in his supposed evolutionary progenitor. Then 
comes the crowning endowment of Man—volition—that 
power which enables him to will, to do or not to do. 
rom whence did these faculties come? Do you think 
that selection, self-administered, can account -for them? 
These functions of the human mind are entirely outside 
of the mechanical, and evolution cannot account for them 
in any adequate manner. They were placed in Man’s 
individuality by the Creator; no other causality is ade- 
quate to account for their presence in Man. The claim 
is made that the cell has the function and the power to 
reproduce itself in a new cell, when the parent cell’s work 
is done. Even if that were entirely true, they cannot ex- 
plain that process by the evolutionary formule. It is not 
technically true; it is only partially true that the parent 
cell reproduces itself in a new cell in the place of an old 
one. The old cell furnishes the nidus for the new cell, 
but the same cause that produced the first cell in the 
nascent organism reproduces the cell when the old cell is 
burned out. The vital principle caused the first cell to 
form in the nascent organism, and it also causes the last 
cell to form the perfected organism. 

This is the expression of animal life in the organism, 
and is not capable of explanation on any other hypothesis 
than that of the life-principle furnishing the constructive 


158 WHAT IS MAN? 


power of the organism. Descartes said well when he 
called it the “vis essentialis.” 

Dr. Chambers, on the ““Renewal of Life,” says: “Man’s 
body may be likened to a stately mansion, made of beau- 
teous but very perishable materials, all of which are al- 
ways needing repairs to keep up the shapeliness and 
usefulness of the building. But not all in equal degrees; 
some of the walls may stand unaided for years, while 
other parts may want almost hourly looking after. When 
the owner leaves the dwelling the repairs cease, and then 
we see, not all at once, but one after another, the mate- 
rials falling into ruin. Already while the soul is with- 
drawing we know that changes begin, very obvious to 
even the most superficial observer. These changes are 
mostly due to the loss of water by evaporation. The 
eyeball loses its brilliancy and gets dry and flat, the fea- 
tures shrink, the gloss leaves the hair and skin. Dead 
flesh and living flesh last as nearly as possible the same 
time—the former, if anything, rather longer. As far 
as we can judge, the albumen, fibrin, gelatin, etc., which 
make up the living body differ in no wise from the same 
matters dead; they are liable to the same change, affect- 
ed by the same reagents, and naturally are resolved into 
their elements in the same time, just as the marble in 
the Apollo Belvidere is to a mineralogist the same stone 
as it was in the quarry, liable to the same accidents and 
possessed of the same properties, though temporarily 
endowed with a different value, and made godlike by 
its adventitious form.” 

Does it not appear perfectly plain, from this beautiful 
figure of speech, that the life-element, the vital prin- 
ciple, is the essential element in the living body? Indeed, 
it seems so plain that it ought not to be questioned—but 
it is. The order is exactly reversed when it is said that 
the organism gives life, instead of the ‘vis essentialis” 
giving rise to the organism. The medical kaleidoscope 
has lately taken another turn, and now again they ad- 
vocate the old theory of life, viz., that life depends on 
the chemistry, or the chemical changes going on in the 
organism. This is about the fifth time in history that 
this theory has had its inning, and we know not how 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 159 


many times more it may be renewed in the future, as 
men’s minds are apt to run in ruts. Thus the evolution- 
ist has no climax with which to finish off or complete 
his structure, Man. There are lacking all the distinctive 
elements of Man’s individuality, so that he has neither 
foundation for his structure, nor spire to finish it off; 
but he deals only with the dynamic forces of what he 
chooses to call nature, by assumption, just as Dr. Haeckel 
did a while back. 

Let us see what this great power is that they regard 
as the ultima thule, and so diligently invoke to complete 
all their processes. Mr. Darwin says: “I mean by 
nature only the aggregate action and product of many 
natural laws; and by laws, the sequence of events as 
ascertained by us.” 

Let us examine that definition a little. Is it a com- 
prehensive and intelligible definition of nature? Could 
anybody have told what he was defining if he had not 
stated what it was? It is not permissible to use the same 
word in the definition that is being defined; but the defi- 
nition must be given in other terms than the one being 
defined, else it is no definition, as it does not remove the 
obscurity which was supposed to exist and which made 
it necessary to give a definition. If asked to define 
mathematics, you would not be permitted to say: Mathe- 
matics is the aggregate action and product of many 
mathematical laws; or in other words, mathematics is 
mathematics; as that does not make the other person to 
understand by words what is meant by the terms em- 
ployed. Now, if he means by that definition of nature 
the powers which carry on the processes of creation, i.e., 
the power which continues the reproduction of the species 
by procreation, then we could understand him; but it is 
evident that he objects to such a wording, as he denies 
creation im toto, and therefore felt it necessary to give 
his meaning of the word “nature,” after leaving out the 
idea of creation, with a result so equivocal or ambiguous 
as to be unintelligible. 

That ambiguous definition of nature makes it neces- 
sary to define the word “laws.” When he comes to define 
that word, he puts the effect in the place of the law; 


160 WHAT IS MAN? 


as, “the sequence of events as ascertained by us.” Now, 
that is not the law at all, but simply the effects of the 
law. The law is that if two correlated vital elements 
fuse, under proper environment, a new vital principle 
will be created; the new vital principle is the sequential 
event, produced by the fulfilment of the law. This event 
is ascertained by us when the new vital principle has 
taken on the form of the genus to which it belongs, so 
that it can be differentiated by us. 

Mr. Darwin seemingly foresaw that some one might 
ask him whence come these natural laws? What legis- 
lative power is there in the universe that can enact a 
natural law? Or did these natural laws arise spon- 
taneously? It must have been a legislative power having 
supreme control of the universe that enacted its laws 
and is therefore the Supreme Power of the universe. 

That new vital principle, and therefore new life, which 
is the result of the fulfilment of the law, is a new creation, 
a creation just as much as when God created Adam from 
the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils 
the breath of life. This new creation is accomplished 
by virtue of God’s fiat, in setting up the law; therefore 
reproduction is an oft-repeated creation, in that every 
time the law is fulfilled a new being results. That con- 
stitutes a miracle, just as much as the first creation, only 
it is accomplished in a different manner, but a miracle 
nevertheless, because it is wrought by the interposition, 
aid, and permission of God, through His law. Will any 
man explain reproduction on any other basis? 

Even Mr. Darwin did not claim to have established 
evolution as a fact; he offered evolution as a theory only, 
to explain nature in the animate world, from the stand- 
point of a disbeliever in a Creator—denying in toto the 
creation (of the animal world especially) by a Creator. 
You see his position; he was a’man of brains, and he 
bent his energies to satisfy himself in metaphysical 
philosophy that there is no Creator. The doctrine is 
unique for its mysteries, and is apparently too valuable 
an asset, to the large class of unbelievers, to be given 
up. Therefore it has been pushed for all that it is 
worth, and it has been patched up by different men 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 161 


with different theories until it is a veritable crazy-quilt 
of incongruous, unharmonious coloring, and devoid of 
truth. 

Neither did Prof. Huxley think that evolution is an 
established truth, though it is hard to say just what he 
did really think, as his statements of his belief are so 
equivocal as to amount to a contradiction. For instance, 
he says: “Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis is not, so far as I 
am aware, inconsistent with any known biological fact; 
on the contrary, if admitted, the facts of development, 
of comparative anatomy, of geographical distribution, and 
of paleontology, become connected together and exhibit a 
meaning such as they never possessed before. And I, 
for one, am fully convinced that if not precisely true, 
that hypothesis is as near an approximation to the truth 
as, for example, the Copernican hypothesis was to 
the theory of the planetary motions. But for all this, 
our acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis must be 
provisional so long as one link in the chain of evidence is 
wanting ; and so long as all animals and plants certainly 
produced by selective breeding from common stock are 
fertile, and their progeny are fertile with one another, 
that link will be wanting; for, so long, selective breed- 
ing will not be proved competent to do all that is required 
of it to produce natural species.” 

How any man can reconcile and harmonize those two 
statements is beyond my comprehension. The principles 
involved in the statements are incompatible, unrecon- 
cilable. Take this clause: “Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis 
is not, so far as I am aware, inconsistent with any bio- 
logical fact.” The Darwinian theory of evolution is in- 
consistent with the biological fact of genera, as, if evo- 
lution were true, there could be no such thing as differ- 
ent genera in the animal world; but, instead thereof, 
the animal world would be composed of fine gradations 
of intermediate, transitional forms of life, all having 
one common blood, and all fertile with one another, which 
is not the case. 

Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with the well 
known biological fact that there are separate and distinct 
genera, and that two separate and distinct genera cannot 


162 WHAT IS MAN? 


unite for procreation, because they are not fertile with 
one another. 

Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with the biological 
fact that two individuals of the same genus only can unite 
with each other for procreation, and that the progeny 
of such unions will be fertile with one another only. 

Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with the biological 
fact that there never has been known to be, and there 
cannot be, according to Prof. Huxley’s statement, a 
specimen of an intermediate, transitional form of life. 
This fact is fatal to the Darwinian theory, for he says 
the transition is by ordinary descent, by numerous, slight 
modifications of the original form. Compare this with 
Mr. Harrison’s statement: “The course of every de- 
velopment is irrevocably determined when the primor- 
dial type is constituted.” How, then, can one genus pro- 
duce another genus? Compare also Prof. Huxley’s 
statement: “For, so long, selective breeding will not be 
proved to do all that is required of it to produce natural 
species.” Then selection has ignominously failed to do 
what Mr. Darwin’s theory said it would do. All of which 
facts it is reasonable to suppose Prof. Huxley was aware 
of. 

The two statements are inconsistent with each other 
in that, in the second statement, he clearly states a fact 
which wholly invalidates the first statement; and which 
fact, I may say right here, is the crux of the whole matter, 
the decisive point in the controversy. It is a clear, terse 
statement of the exact truth; and this truth having been 
established beyond any hope, on their part, of contradic- 
tion, totally annihilates the Darwinian theory of evolution. 
It is this: ‘So long as all animals and plants certainly 
produced by selective breeding from common stock are 
fertile (which is the supreme and conclusive test of 
genus), and their progeny are fertile with one another, 
that link will be wanting.” That statement is in perfect 
harmony with all nature. It is absolutely the law, no one 
knowing it any better than Prof. Huxley, and it makes 
it positive that one genus cannot bring forth a new genus. 
It makes no difference how much selection has been 
exercised and enforced, so long as the progeny are fertile 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 163 


with one another, it is positive proof that they are of the 
same genus. Therefore, a connecting link in the form 
of an intermediate, transitional form of life is an impos- 
sibility. Mr. Darwin’s theory must necessarily then be 
wrong, as the very thing they do not want is the rule and 
the law, and the test of the law; and the thing they do 
want is an impossibility, as Prof. Huxley says himself. 

The foregoing axiom, in biological law, stated by Prof. 
Huxley, is corroborated by Mr. Darwin’s own experience 
in that, though a breeder of pigeons for twenty years, 
he never bred anything but a pigeon from pigeons; and 
they were all fertile with one another; so much so that 
he had to use enforced selection to breed from. As a 
matter of course, there were many different varieties pro- 
duced, but they were all pigeons. But let those new 
varieties alone, cease to exercise enforced selection for a 
time, and they will revert to the original rock pigeon from 
which they all sprang. Mongrels are prone to reversion. 

The absence of atavism, the reversion to the peculiari- 
ties of remote ancestry, in the human race, or any genus 
for that matter, is another corroborative proof that the 
human race is not a descendant from the ape; but has been 
a distinct genus from his creation. 

To show that Prof. Huxley had not all the doubts 
cleared away from the “corners of his mind’: ‘No one 
is more strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of 
the guif between civilized man and the brutes; or is more 
certain, whether from them or not, he is not of them.” 
Now, I confess that I cannot understand what he means 
by that expression. Ordinarily we would say, if we were 
from them, we are of them. But he would have us to say, 
even if we are from them, we are not of them. It would 
be interesting to know how we could be from them and 
not of them. Some people, at least, are proud of their 
ancestry, and take great pains to preserve their lineage. 
I do not know that I blame the professor for disowning 
the ancestry he has advocated for the rest of the human 
race, in the evolutionary chain; but is it logical? It would 
seem to me to be most repugnant to think that my an- 
cestors were monkeys. 

But the later school of evolution, the lesser lights of 


164 WHAT IS MAN? 


the theory, claim that evolution is no longer a theory; 
that it is a branch of civic science, real knowledge, classi- 
fied knowledge, which means that it is absolutely known 
to be true. Have we not proven over and over again 
its fallacy in these pages? Not only by the argument 
adduced by the writer, but by the words of Prof. Huxley? » 
Now we submit to any candid mind that it is only classi- 
fied speculation—nothing more. 

Prof. Huxley says: ‘‘Science has fulfilled her func- 
tion when she has ascertained the truth; and were these 
pages addressed to men of science only, I would now 
close this essay, knowing that my colleagues have learned 
to respect nothing but evidence, and to believe that their 
highest duty lies in submitting to it, however much it may 
jar against their inclinations.” I like that; it suits me 
exactly. But how it must grate upon the ears of his 
colleagues, after they see pointed out the incongruities, 
the inconsistencies, yes, the baseless position of evolution! 

One professor (?) has the assurance to say: “He who 
doubts that man and the chimpanzee have a common an- 
cestor must be congratulated on his inviolate mind. Facts 
have no terrors for him.” Now, that hits the writer ex- 
actly; he is in that class; and can say in retort that any 
man who believes that he is the descendant from the chim- 
panzee, or any one of the four anthropoid apes, has not 
studied the question to the bottom, or else there is some- 
thing wrong with his reasoning faculties. Of course wedo 
not object to his believing that kind of trash if he wants 
to. If he is happy in the belief that his progenitor was 
a chimpanzee, that is satisfactory to me; his progenitor 
may have been an ape, but mine was not. What we do 
object to is his posing as a scientist; and from that posi- 
tion promulgating such nonsense for the truth. . 

I have been diligently working for four years to find 
at least some of those so-called facts; but I have found 
not one essential fact that any man can put his finger 
on that will, in any degree, justify the assertion that 
“Man sprang from the ape,” or that “Some one of the 
four varieties of the anthropoid ape is the progenitor of 
Man.” Even Mr. Darwin or Prof. Huxley do not claim 
that there is even one essential fact known to them on 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 16s 


which to base the assertion. Their arguments are all 
based on inferences, of which I will give a sample pres- 
ently. Not a single essential fact is known, but, on the 
contrary, every essential fact in nature is arrayed against 
the Darwinian theory of the evolution of the species. 
There are a great many assumptions, and all that is not 
assumption is pure theory; and is even more impossible 
than perpetual motion. As well expect an ostrich to be 
hatched from a canary bird’s egg, as that the progeny of 
an invertebrate should be a vertebrate, or that the spawn 
of a fish should produce a reptile. Well has the venerable 
pathologist, Prof. Virchow, said: “It is quite certain 
that Man is not the descendant of the ape; it is unimagin- 
able save only in a dream.” 

Geology does not furnish a single well-marked example 
of intermediate, transitional development in the animal 
kingdom, an innumerable host of which Mr. Darwin says 
must, at some time in the past, have existed, if his theory 
is true. But suppose that geology is so imperfect that it 
has failed to record any intermediate forms of life, but 
has recorded some curious, extinct forms of life in the 
fossiliferous deposits, would that fact substantiate the 
theory of evolution? Not at all. Because a few unusual, 
extinct forms of life have been found with which geolo- 
gists and naturalists were not familiar, perhaps never 
having seen such forms before, would that justify the con- 
clusion that such forms are intermediate, transitional 
forms of life? Not at all. When it is remembered that, 
on the evolutionary theory, there were an untold number 
of intermediate forms of fine gradations, resulting from 
the numerous, slight modifications of form in the line 
between each of the well-marked genera of to-day (grant- 
ing, for the time being, that such a thing could be), there 
must have been infinitely more in numbers of this transi- 
tional form of life than of the true genera. For this 
reason the very pertinent question is again asked: If 
there were ever these intermediate forms of animal life, 
whence comes the order that we see to-day in the animal 
world, of only well-marked genera? What great, dis- 
criminative, deadly malady operated to bring order out 
of chaos by obliterating entirely all this host of interme- 


166 WHAT IS MAN? 


diate, transitional forms of life, and leaving only the rep- 
resentatives of the true genera? Some very unusual form 
of destruction must have operated with complete suc- 
cess. It must have been awful! But can anybody imagine 
such a discriminative -besom of destruction? But here 
comes Prof. Huxley. He is a great apostle of evolution ; 
let us ask him about this great slaughter of the inno- 
cents. i 

“Prof. Huxley, what do you think about this great host 
of intermediate, transitional forms of life that were swept 
away, leaving only the well-marked genera?” 

“Well,” hesitatingly, “I will tell you; I have concluded 
that so long as all animals and plants certainly produced 
by selective breeding from common stock are fertile, and 
their progeny are fertile with one another, that link (all 
intermediates) will be wanting.” 

“What! Do you think there were no intermediate, con- 
necting links between the genera?” 

“Why, so long, selective breeding will not be proved 
competent to do all that is required of it to produce 
natural species.” 

Well, well! Then there were no intermediate, transi- 
tional forms of life? Why, there could not be, because 
when Prof. Huxley said the connecting link would be 
wanting, he could not mean just one connecting link 
between two nearly related genera; but he must mean 
all connecting links between all the different genera; be- 
cause the law applies to all animals alike, and his state- 
ment is that of a general principle, applicable to all, if 
it is to one. The “so long” he makes use of takes in all 
time in the past, and, probably, all time to come. It has 
ever been thus. Here is a vindication of what we have 
contended for all along, by one of the greatest advocates 
of evolution—Prof. Thomas H. Huxley. 

Thus another distinct bar to the evolution theory is 
raised. But there are many more. For instance: The 
physiological process of aeration or oxygenation of the 
blood in the different forms of organic life is a distinct 
bar to the theory of evolution. In the lower forms of 
life there are no specialized organs. Of the vital organs 
there are but two—the stomach and intestines. Indeed, 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 167 


we may go back to those forms of life that have no stom- 
ach ; they have but one vital organ—the intestinal canal— 
though the skin may be counted a vital organ. So, in 
very many of the lower forms of life, there is no differen- 
tiated vascular system; in fact, they have no blood to cir- 
culate in the sense of its being a fluid composed of plasma, 
red and white corpuscles, and serum; but it is only a 
nutritive juice, and is distributed to the different struc- 
tures, which are very few, by osmosis from the intestinal 
canal. What little aeration there is, is brought about by 
and through the investing membrane, which corresponds 
to the skin of more complex organisms. The claim of 
evolution is that these simple, primary organisms are the 
progenitors of the next higher organism in the scale; 
and these in turn the progenitors of the next higher, and 
so up to Man. With each new species a new system must 
have been inaugurated for the accomplishment of the 
aeration, until we arrive at the completed structure of 
the lung with its distinctive pulmonary circulation. The 
question is, to what power does evolution ascribe all these 
changes? What gave rise to the initiative in each 
change? What executive power secured the construction 
and installation of the new structure? What intelligence 
supervised the architecture of the new organism? Mr. 
Darwin says it is selection that sees to all this. Mr. 
Spencer says these changes are brought about by the 
expression of the desire, or the aversion of the individ- 
uality ; or they result from the pleasures or the pains ofthe 
individuality. Dr. Haeckel says these changes are brought 
about from the necessities of the case. Necessity is the 
architect and builder, probably, but I favor transmutation. 
Are any of these ascribed causes valid or adequate causes? 
Could anything be more preposterous? One solution is 
as good as the other. Neither is valid or adequate. But 
here again comes a great man who has seen the light— 
Mr. Frederic Harrison—who says: ‘The course of every 
development is irrevocably determined when the primor- 
dial type is constituted.” And Prof. Huxley practically 
endorses him by saying: “So long as all animals and 
plants certainly produced by selective breeding from com- 
mon stock are fertile, and their progeny are fertile with 


168 WHAT IS MAN? 


one another, that link will be wanting. So long, selective 
breeding will not be proved competent to do all that is 
required of it to produce natural species.” Is that con- 
clusive enough to prove the fallacy of the theory? 

Charles Darwin was a brilliant, aggressive and tireless 
enthusiast of nature; in his ambition to be first in his 
class he gave rein to his imagination, and then wrote in 
the spirit of a novelist, rather than that of a scientist, 
using specious arguments based on hypothecated struc- 
tures, to make his theory complete; all the time using 
his arguments with great adroitness, avoiding too definite 
statements, but just strong enough to confuse and mystify, 
to support his theory, if the reader’s imagination be 
strong and active enough to follow where he leads. But 
now, reader, we have done away with all imagination in 
the story, so leave out your imagination and look at the 
facts of nature, and perceive at once that all the facts 
there discovered are arrayed against his theory. 

Mr. Darwin’s work, “The Origin of the Species,” con- 
sists largely of hypothecated structures, which he uses 
in the place of realities. He starts in with a proposition 
adjusted to suit his fancy and his necessities, proceeds 
to draw an imaginary semi-conclusion in the shape of 
“apparently” ; then he follows with an argument in which 
he builds a further hypothecated structure; and for a 
conclusion of the second link, he says: “These animals 
probably gave rise to” so-and-so. Then, for a grand 
conclusion, he reasons if the apparent gave rise to the 
probable, such-and-such a result must have followed. 
Now this is the exact process by which he brings forth 
a vertebrate from an invertebrate—an impossible thing. 
Thus a conclusion has been reached with as much satis- 
faction as though his hypothecated structures, to begin 
with, had been a reality. This is characteristic of his 
work. Sometimes, to relieve the monotony, he reaches 
a conclusion by a less certain and authoritative route, and 
says: “If such an hypothecation is right,” such-and-such 
a result may follow. Then, in certain places, where he 
has a certainty to start with and wants a connecting link 
in his chain, his fertile brain brings forth the imaginary 
or hypothecated structure with as much assurance as 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 169 


though it was a well-known species; and assumes that 
it is so, with as much nonchalance as though he had seen 
it with his own material eyes. Of course it is to be pre- 
sumed that all this came about by or through the in- 
fluence of either “natural” or “sexual” selection. 

Now, such is the basis and the reasoning of the so- 
called “Science of Evolution.” Is it a science, or is it 
the wildest of speculation by a very able author ? 

Some people might think this criticism is a baseless 
tirade—an unjustifiable attack on Mr. Darwin’s writings. 
Because of this liability, I will give a quotation from his 
work, “The Origin of the Species.” 

In the example quoted below, be it remembered that 
he is in a dilemma; he has arrived at a point in his story 
where he has to make the invertebrate the progenitor of 
the vertebrate. He says: “The most ancient progenitors 
of the kingdom of the vertebrata, at which we are able 
to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a 
group of marine animals, resembling the larve of the 
ascidians. These animals probably gave rise to a group 
of fishes as lowly as the lancelet; and from these the 
ganoids must have been developed.” (The italics are all 
mine. ) 

Just think of the whole kingdom of the vertebrata 
having such a very slender thread of existence as is 
indicated by “probable” and “apparently!” And, then, 
to have this very slender thread an impossibility makes 
it heartrending to think how it all happened. (?) 

It seems very plain and very fair to infer that Mr. 
Darwin, in his later years, was influenced greatly in his 
reasoning by his intimate friend and associate, Herbert 
Spencer. The International Cyclopedia says: “Spen- 
cer’s treatment of science and scientific subjects does not 
begin with observation and experiment on well-known 
bases, and thence rise through them to scientific gener- 
alizations ; but starts with hypotheses supposed to be ulti- 
mate truths, the test in all cases being the mental incon- 
ceivability of the opposite of the proposition; and seeks 
to explain phenomena from this assumed standpoint.” In 
other words, his treatment of science is entirely specula- 
tive and deductive, couched in abstrusely technical lan- 


170 WHAT IS MAN? 


guage. Very similar indeed is Mr. Darwin’s method of 
treating knotty problems. The reasoning is the same, 
and may be called specious. 

If allowed to set up a questionable premise, very re- 
markable results may be brought about, even by correct 
and cogent reasoning; but which may be entirely at vari- 
ance with the facts, simply because the premise is not 
a correct one. Now, this is the exact condition in Mr. 
Darwin’s “The Origin of the Species.” The author has 
started in with the idea as a premise that nature is the 
ultimate cause of all living phenomena; denying, as he 
says, the dictum of creation. He also assumes that this 
ultimate cause may be influenced, twisted, and distorted 
in any kind of shape, and still it will kindly reproduce 
whenever invoked. Then, after all that, if allowed to 
supply all manner of hypothecated structures, and to as- 
sume that they are genuine productions of nature, any 
result may be obtained to suit the fancy. 

Nature is not the ultimate cause acting to produce 
the animal world. Nature is simply the result of the 
action of a great Causation lying back of it. Nature is 
the universe and all that in it is; God is the builder. 
Nature is perpetuated by the action of that same great 
and ultimate Causation through laws enacted by Him for 
that purpose. Those laws are positive and inexorable. 
Mr. Darwin has treated them—the laws of reproduction, 
particularly—as being highly exorable; in fact, capable 
of being twisted in any manner he saw fit, in order to 
meet his wants. For instance, the positive and inexor- 
able law of reproduction, that species can only repro- 
duce their kind, is entirely ignored or made exorable 
by having them produce other than their kind; not only 
slightly different, but entirely different, the nature of the 
progeny being entirely revolutionized. As an inverte- 
brate to bring forth a vertebrate animal; and that ver- 
tebrate, the lowest type of the fish, made to be the pro- 
genitor of the whole kingdom of the vertebrata, in spite 
of the inexorable law that each genus shall bring forth 
of its kind only. 

Take another example to show his acute imagination 
and his specious reasoning. He is now trying to account 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 171 


for the fact that the human being has no hair on his 
body, very unlike his supposed progenitor, the ape. This 
is a veritable climax of absurdity. He says: ‘The view 
which seems to me most probable is that Man, or rather 
primarily Woman, became divested of hair for orna- 
mental purposes, and the man through sexual selection.” 

I freely and willingly confess that this statement is 
beyond my range of conception. “For ornamental pur- 
poses!” Did it affect all women then alive and at the 
same time? Or did it affect just a few leading ones 
first, and then the rest from jealousy? From whence 
comes this artistic taste?—or, in other words, who was 
the artist? Was it Woman alone, or was it some mys- 
terious influence from without? Or was it nature? If it 
was Woman alone, that is incompatible with the idea 
that primitive Woman was very feebly endowed with 
intelligence—merely a step above the brutes around her. 
If it was nature that acted as artist, and pointed out the 
ugly hair on her skin, how did nature communicate with 
Woman? From whence came the standard of ornamen- 
tation? Why should it be more ornamental to be without 
hair than with hair? All animals have hair on their 
bodies, and if Man came from the animal, why should 
not he have hair also? And, lastly, why was it not all 
removed? 

After carefully thinking this matter over, the only so- 
lution of the problem conceivable by me is that the spark 
of pride having been flashed into the brain of Woman, 
in some unaccountable and unjustifiable manner (as 
though nature did not know what was best for her), and 
from some unknown source, presumably ‘natural selec- 
tion,’ she gazed at her then hairy person and did not like 
the looks of the hair; did not like the idea of having hair 
on her body, 7.e., so much of it. So she, in some mys- 
terious way, got rid of the hair on her body. Mr. Dar- 
win leaves us entirely in the dark as to how she did it; 
whether through the slow and painful process of epila- 
tion, or through the mental effect of the shock which was 
produced by observing her own hairy skin, or by reasonof 
her aversion to the hair and the desire to have it removed, 
or by the application of quicklime to the skin, we shall 


172 WHAT IS MAN? 


never know. But, in some way, Woman was divested of 
the hair on her body, 1.e., most of it, for ornamental pur- 
poses. How about the Man? It was by virtue of “sexual 
selection,” Mr. Darwin says, that Man became divested of 
the hair on his body. The best definition of this function, 
‘‘sexual selection,’ that I have been able to get from Mr. 
Darwin’s writings (and, by the way, you cannot find any 
mention of such a potentiality in nature anywhereelsethan 
in Darwin’s writings) is the following: “Sexual selection 
does not depend on any superiority in the general strug- 
gle for life, but on certain individuals of one sex, gen- 
erally the male, being successful in conquering other 
males, and leaving a larger number of offspring than do 
the less successful males.” | 

This definition makes it necessary that one male should 
conquer every other male representative of the genus 
flomo; and that this one representative should then be- 
come divested of the hair on his body, before sexual se- 
lection, as defined, could have any effect on the progeny 
by the hereditary effect. Then this successful Man, the 
best Man physically then alive, must be the progenitor 
of all that came after him. How did this first Man, 
the best Man then alive, procure the removal of the hair 
from his body? It would be interesting to know this, for 
in what way could sexual selection operate to bring about 
the result in his case? Is it reasonable to suppose that 
one Man could conquer all the rest of the representatives 
of the genus? Note also the great slur that such a doc- 
trine casts on the personality of womanhood, as though ~ 
they were cattle. 

If this one best Man did not really annihilate all the 
rest of the men then living, I can only figure it out in 
this way: The women in their pride having become 
divested of the hair on their bodies, for purely ornamen- 
tal purposes, would have nothing to do with a hairy 
Man. Of course they (the men, poor creatures) did not 
know the reason of the boycott, and, as Mr. Darwin says 
the human race could not talk at first, she could not 
tell them as to the reason of the strike. And even though 
the women had gone through the process of dehairing 
and knew how to do it, they could not tell the men how 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 173 


to proceed, as they could not talk, and, so, with no knowl- 
edge of barbering, the condition of the hirsute men is 
all mystery. What shall this army of rejected men do? 
What can they do? This one best Man has vanquished 
all other representatives of the genus Homo, and thereby 
stolen all the women for his own wives. There would be 
no trouble if they could only solve the mystery and find 
out the cause of the boycott; but here they are, helpless 
from the heartless strike of the women. According to 
Mr. Darwin’s idea, after this one best Man could become 
divested of the hair on his body, by some means—no mat- 
ter how—all the women would flock to him, of course; 
and then the rest of those poor stupid, speechless, hairy 
creatures might possibly recognize the reason for the 
cold shoulder of Woman being turned against them. 
After that they could “go and do likewise.” Of course, 
this is only on the supposition that this one best Man had 
not killed off all the rest; and it is reasonable to suppose 
that he had not, because of the different races of man- 
kind. But, in the meantime, just think what a sorry time 
it would be for that one best Man. The only Man in 
the world the women would associate with. And all 
this came about because of Woman’s pride. Oh, Woman! 
proud Woman! Mr. Darwin does not tell us how it 
came out, but, apparently, the problem was solved. Man 
in some way got rid of the hair on his body, 1.e., most 
of it; and the sexes again became reconciled to each 
other. 

Such is the supposed record of the first successful 
strike in the history of the world; and a demonstration of 
the fact, it must now be conceded, that the pride of 
Woman is indeed one of her primary traits of character ; 
and that when she asserts her prerogative the world 
moves in response. 

Who dares to compete with this Munchausen tale for 
the prize? Does anybody, whether sane or insane, be- 
lieve it? It makes the Arabian Nights’ Entertainments 
look like serious history. With such assurance as is here 
manifested, aided by such a fertile imagination, Man may 
solve any problem or overcome any difficulty in his mind. 

The human mind is so constituted that it is just as 


174 WHAT IS MAN? 


susceptible to error as to truth. A person having heard 
and believed the erroneous, whether it be a simple state- 
ment or a reported scientific truth, may be just as happy, 
just as contented in the belief of the erroneous doctrine 
as he would have been in the belief of the truth. Espe- 
cially is this so if the erroneous statement is reinforced 
by elaborate and specious arguments, and is in accord 
with one’s own sympathies; or one’s own preconceived 
ideas or notions; or relieves one of responsibilities. If 
the erroneous statement partakes of the mysterious, oc- 
cult or supernatural, it is accepted as a truth beyond the 
comprehension of the great mass of humanity. Appar- 
ently such statements will and do captivate a certain 
class who pride themselves on their scientific acumen, and 
who would rather avow their belief in and embrace the 
mysterious, no matter how much it may partake of the 
occult or supernatural, than to acknowledge the miracu- 
lous in the Creator. That is to say, so long as the 
author of the occult and the mysterious is unannounced, 
it will be accepted, whether within or without the bounds 
of reason. But the moment the author of the miracu- 
lous is announced as being God, that God is the Creator 
of the universe, and has performed the miraculous act of 
creation, with great éclat they at once announce that 
they do not believe in miracles or the supernatural. 
Permit an illustration: Mr. Darwin maintains that 
by some mysterious, unnamed, inherent power in the sim- 
ple cell, the moneron, without architect or guide, and 
only influenced by that uncertain quantity, “natural selec- 
tion,’ which he displays as one of the manifestations of 
nature, it has actually built up to its present perfection 
the entire animal kingdom, including Man, with all its 
variations. The process requires the transmuting of fish 
into reptiles; then the cold-blooded reptiles into warm- 
blooded birds; and then, in turn, changing birds, whose 
bones contain air-cells, into animals having marrow in 
their bones. By a simple wave of his magic wand he 
gets rid of the crop and gizzard, and in their stead in- 
stalls an entirely different digestive system; and instead 
of feathers the animal is covered with hair; and their 
progeny are brought forth by gestation instead of incu- 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 175 


bation. A thousand other miraculous changes also are 
necessitated to complete the supernatural changes. Now, 
I ask, could there be anything more mysterious, super- 
natural or miraculous than such a process?—in spite of 
the fact that no adequate causation is set up! Right 
here is the whole process of creation of the animal king- 
dom ascribed to nothing, absolutely nothing! Right 
here the whole series of miracles required to be performed 
to produce the animal world is performed by the inherent 
power stored up in that cell, which measures about 
1-144,000ths of an inch in diameter ; and that cell created 
itself in the beginning by “spontaneous creation.” 

There are people who prefer to believe such a mass of 
impossible absurdities, rather than believe that God 
created the universe. 

In the process involved in this evolution, all the in- 
exorable laws of nature, in the reproduction of the animal 
kingdom, as they are now known, are violated; or they 
could not have been inaugurated until after the building 
of the animal world was completed; or else they were 
abrogated or annulled for a time, but now they are acting 
and being observed again. 

This absurd theory of evolution was promulgated with 
elaborate and specious arguments; and the doctrine finds 
ready acceptance by many men, even of liberal education. 
Men of great learning, in other lines, would rather be- 
lieve this Munchausen story, with all its absurdities, 
which ascribes creation to nothing, than to believe in God 
as the Creator of all things. 

Here is a specimen of the reasoning, as given by a 
very intelligent man: Evolution has produced the entire 
animal world by natural processes, and there is no 
miracle about it; but God could not produce the animal 
world without performing a miracle or a series of 
miracles. I do not believe in miracles at all; I do not 
believe there ever was a miracle performed in this world; 
therefore I believe in evolution. 

This is the genuine evolution doctrine, not in the same 
words that Mr. Darwin uses, but condensed to its nu- 
cleus. We are taught that two things that are equal to 
the same thing are equal to each other. Thousands, per- 


176 WHAT IS MAN? 


haps, accept this statement, or similar ones, as the em- 
bodiment of a great, scientific thought; whereas it has 
not an element of science or truth in it. 

The whole trouble with this formula is that they have 
set up aS a premise, an impotent, imaginary something 
(rather I should say nothing) as a cause. Science de- 
clares that evolution is neither a producing cause nor a 
controlling law; therefore, evolution is incapable of pro- 
ducing anything, neither can it control production. 
Nature is the creation at large, as distinguished from the 
Creator. Nature has no creative power, but is the prod- 
uct of some adequate causation lying back of it, and act- 
ing by or through laws. In the above proposition there is 
no adequate cause set up. The premise is wrong; and as 
a natural result the conclusion is wrong also. 

The question arises in my mind: Why should a Man 
prefer to pin his faith to a mysterious, imaginary impo- 
tency, as a cause, rather than to believe in God as the 
Creator? I cannot answer the question satisfactorily ; 
but a notable circumstance is that all the leading evolu- 
tionists have been either atheists, skeptics or infidels. And 
yet Mr. Darwin says: “I see no good reason why the 
views given in this volume (“Descent of Man,” vol. I)- 
should shock any one.’ 

As an example of what the acceptance of the doctrine 
and principles advocated by evolutionists, directly trace- 
able to the views given in this volume, will do for any 
one’s religious belief, we would simply point to all per- 
sons who knowingly accept this doctrine. From the great- 
er to the lesser lights, they are as a rule skeptics. Indeed, 
it could not well be otherwise, it seems to me, with a 
man possessed of even a little reasoning power. I grant 
you there are some who accept the doctrine of evolution, 
who outwardly profess to believe in the doctrine of Chris- 
tianity; but there are various reasons for this, among 
which are, first, “for revenue only’; second, for social 
reasons, popularity in some circles of society. But at 
heart they don’t believe a word of what they hear taught 
from the pulpit; or, if they are teachers, what they are 
called upon to teach. This class is composed largely 
of teachers, professional and business men. I observe 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 177 


that there are many teachers who have become enamored 
with this doctrine, and which by some of them has come 
to be called a branch of civic science, but which is really 
and only classified speculation, without the shadow of a 
scientific basis. 

We must accept one or the other of the two doctrines, 
viz., the doctrine of the direct and special creation by 
God of each genus, practically as related in the Mosaic 
account of the creation; or the doctrine of “The Evolu- 
tion of the Species,” according to Darwin. We cannot 
have a mixture, neither can we have both. If one, either 
one, is true, the other one cannot be true. If the latter 
is true, as a matter of course the Mosaic account of the 
creation is false in every particular. We are then at sea, 
for the foundation of all scripture is gone, and the whole 
fabric is to be repudiated as a fraud and a deception. 
Logically follows the corollary: As Christ accepted and 
advocated the doctrine of a fraud, he must be a fraud 
himself. 

But I would not give this as a reason why we should 
not accept the truth wherever it may lead, notwithstand- 
ing this is one of the greatest questions that ever con- 
fronted Man, viz.: “What will you do with Jesus?” If 
the doctrine of evolution, as commonly accepted, had 
any scientific facts or arguments to substantiate it; if 
there was any proof of its ability to solve the problem 
of the creation; if it could be substantiated by sound 
reason, Or experience, or experiment; it would then be 
within the range of possibilities—it might even be among 
the probabilities, and might be accepted as a modus 
operandi of the Creator in nature. But as the theory 
is at variance with all the facts of nature, it cannot be 
accepted as in harmony with either nature or Christianity. 

The results of teaching the doctrine of evolution may 
be seen reflected in the character of the young men edu- 
cated in our schools and colleges, where the doctrine is 
taught more or less clearly. And, by the way, I want 
to say right here that the less clearly this doctrine is 
taught, the more danger there is in it, the more damage it 
will do; because if it is thoroughly investigated, the base- 


178 WHAT IS MAN? 


less foundation will be exposed and the delusion will be 
dissipated. 

In the city of Boston there are ninety thousand young 
men between the ages of twenty and thirty-five years of 
age; eighty thousand of these have no religious beliefs, 
and do not attend church at all. In the city of Cincinnati 
there are twenty-two thousand young men of similar 
ages, of whom twenty thousand make no profession of 
any belief religiously. No doubt other cities will show 
proportionately the same results upon investigation. 
From observation it is the same wherever you go. It 
may not be that the teaching of the doctrine of evolu- 
tion is the sole cause for such a state of affairs; but 
education is a powerful factor in the building of char- 
acter. The character is apt to follow along’ the lines of 
education. With the acceptance of the doctrine of evolu- 
tion, carried to its ultimate, the incentive to morality is 
largely removed. The person naturally thinks he has 
avoided or shifted the responsibilities placed upon him 
by the great plan of the Creator, but he is deceived. “Be 
not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sow- 
eth that shall he also reap.” 


Once to every man and nation comes the moment to 
decide, 

In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or 
evil side; 

Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the 
bloom or blight, 

Parts the goats upon the left-hand, and the sheep upon 
the right— e 

And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and 
that light. 

| 

Backward look across the ages, and the beacon-moments 
see, 

That, like peaks of some sunk continent, just through 
oblivion’s sea; 

Not an ear in court or market for the low foreboding 
cry 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 179 


Of those crises, God’s stern winnowers, from whose feet 
earth’s chaff must fly; 

Never shows the choice momentus till the judgment hath 
passed by. 


Careless seems the great Avenger; history’s pages but 
record 

One death-grapple in the darkness, ’twixt old systems 
and the Word; 

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the 


throne— 

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim 
unknown, 

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above 
His own. 


icon Oe 


This book is not intended, primarily, as a plea for 
Christianity ; but as an attempt to give a scientific answer 
to the question: What is Man? Primarily and sec- 
ondarily to refute Darwinism on a scientific basis, and, 
finally, to attempt to solve the great question of human 
life, from the best lights that we can bring to bear on 
the subject. 

Those phases of the mind and life referred to are inti- 
mately connected with our subject and deserve careful 
notice, not as a criticism, but as a query. We believe 
creation to be a great, beneficent plan of the Almighty 
God—the Creator of the universe—and we are trying to 
fathom it. If the mind is normal, it ought to be able to 
interpret it aright; for it is not a suitable plan if it is 
out of the range of the human mind. The first link in 
the chain of reasoning is the establishment of a Supreme 
Power of the universe, which we call God. Even Her- 
bert Spencer says God is a necessity, but that he cannot 
prove His existence. If God is a necessity to sound 
reason, His existence needs no further proof. This first 
link once established, the creation naturally follows, as 
being executed by Him as the only adequate causation. 

Evolution is an impotency and explains none of the 
secrets of nature, and cannot be accepted as the ne plus 


180 WHAT IS MAN? 


ultra of creation, or our raison d’étre. No facts so far 
registered tend to substantiate the theory. The modifi- 
cation of the species by reason of environment has no 
bearing whatever on the contention. No Man ever knew 
of a change of genus to be brought about by a change of 
environment, but the change of environment may bring 
about the change of some of the organs of the animal's 
body—may bring about the atrophy or even the extinction 
of a non-used organ, as has been noted in the case of the 
fish in the Mammoth Cave. 

The concept of Man which the Book of Genesis gives 
us is, to my mind, a higher and nobler concept; whether 
or not it be a complete record of the great event of Man’s 
creation. In this concept we behold Man as the direct 
product of God’s own handiwork; a direct creation and 
not an accidental development. It contemplates Man as 
no relative of any form of animal life. Personally, I 
take issue with biology in calling Man an animal, because 
God declares that He made Man in his own image; plain- 
ly indicating that Man is an entirely different form of 
life from that of any animal. | 

Structurally, Man is similar to the animal, the body 
being composed of the same materials, viz., bones, flesh, 
and blood; but not the same bones, flesh and blood, as 
each species may be identified from the other by the 
bones, flesh and blood. Physiologically, Man is similar 
to the animal, not because they are relatives, but because 
all organic life exists under the same natural laws. They 
all exist by the same means and are perpetuated in the 
same manner, under the same natural laws. The dis- 
tinguishing difference between Man and the brute is the 
soul of Man. This is the ego, Man. Some have con- 
tended that the vital principle, the principle that animates 
the body, is the soul; others that the psychical principle 
is the soul. It would seem, if the vital principle is the 
soul, that all animate beings, all forms of life, would have 
souls. If the life is the soul, then every living thing has 
a soul; if the mind is the soul, then a demented person 
has no soul, notwithstanding that he is a human being. 
Then all human beings have not souls. If Man is the 
only form of life that is possessed of a soul, then there 


« SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 181 


must be something different in Man from all other forms 
of life—entirely and radically different. Descartes said: 
“Thought is the function of the soul and its only func- 
tion.” Presumably he uses “thought” as the equivalent 
of consciousness. In our modern phraseology it would 
mean that the consciousness of Man is the soul of Man. 
Consciousness includes the abilities of thought, perception, 
memory, reason, volition, and is susceptible of love, hatred, 
joy and grief. While these are characteristics of Man’sna- 
ture, I would not think they were the soul, but simply 
the emanations of the soul, merely the expression of the 
mental qualities of the individuality ; but please notice that 
this comes very near being the difference between Man 
and monkey, as expressed by the difference in the brains 
of the two species. 

The following is a definition of the soul handed to me 
by an eminent doctor of divinity: “In the universe are 
two primary substances. Such as is judged of or known 
by our natural senses is called matter, and is character- 
ized by impenetrability, extension, figure, indestructi- 
bility, inertia, attraction. Such as is known by thought, 
perception, memory, reason and volition, and is suscep- 
tible of love, hatred, joy and grief, is called spirit and 
is no part of the body. The soul of Man is his spiritual, 
rational part which enables him to think, and which 
renders moral consciousness possible and makes its 
possessor subject to moral government, and is im- 
mortal.” That definition does not get outside of the 
idea that the mind is the soul, which we think it is nec- 
essary to do, else all creatures have souls more or less 
large or small according to the amount of mentality they 
have. Perhaps the following may be acceptable as a 
definition: There is a something whose habitat, probably, 
is the brain of Man, that has control and direction of the 
brain and its operations; it is the real personality of the 
human being, the personal ego, and through the mind, 
reveals to Man his self-consciousness, without which all 
the vaunted powers and possibilities and hopes of Man 
would at once vanish. This is the real distinguishing 
feature between Man and the brute creation. This is 
the soul of the human being, and is the governor of 


182 WHAT IS MAN? 


human thought and action, no matter what the character 
of the thought may be. ‘The brain is the machine by 
which it is made manifest to the outer world, in the im- 
pulse of thought and reason. The soul is purely spiritual, 
and the brain is purely material; this is where the two 
elements, spirit and matter, meet and blend. ‘This spirit 
or soul was received by inheritance from its progenitors ; 
it was born with the life. The propagation of souls has 
been going on, ever since the creation of Adam, in every 
child that has been born, by traduction. 

The brute has no soul because it has no reasoning 
faculties to be presided over. It needs no further proof 
than this to establish the proposition that it is an impossi- 
bility that the brute could be the progenitor of Man. 

This seems to very clearly differentiate Man from the 
monkey, and constitutes Man a wholly different being 
from any of the brute creation. ‘This spiritual being, 
which is the ego of Man, is the part that is created in 
the image of God, and is not possessed by or character- 
istic of a brute, notwithstanding the very great intelli- 
gence of some animals. 

But, as has already been pointed out, there are many 
physical characteristics which readily distinguish Man 
from the brute creation. A notable difference is found 
in the time that it takes for the young Homo to mature, 
from that of any other genus in the animal kingdom. 
This fact alone demonstrates a different form of life, 
even if there were no other distinguishing marks or 
qualities. The baby chimpanzee walks in a few minutes 
after its birth, and matures in a few months; inside of a 
year or two it is a full-grown specimen. The baby Homo 
is the most helpless nursling in the world. For the first 
year it is utterly helpless; usually takes another year, if 
not two are required, to learn to walk; and then another 
year or two to learn to talk; and a score of years to at- 
tain to its stature and maturity. 

The only record we have of the transaction, whether 
true or false, is found in Genesis and reads: “God said, 
let us make Man in our own image. . . . In the 
image of God created He him; male and female created 
He them. . . . And the Lord God formed Man of 


SUPREME POWER OF THE UNIVERSE 183 


the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life; and Man became a living soul,’ ) 1 note 
that this is the only instance given in the record of the 
creation, that God breathed into the nostrils the breath of 
life. This gives Man his life direct from God. 

Whether or not this account is to be accepted as the 
inspired word of God, it supplies us the only statement 
we have of Man’s origin that is in any way adequate ; 
and is in entire accord with nature and reason. All the 
facts in nature substantiate this view. I have no quibble 
or uneasiness as to how long ago, as measured by our 
years, the great event occurred; but I am interested in 
the fact that Man is here; and believe he is here as a 
ward of the Creator, for a purpose. 

Now, if there is not a higher life that is in some way 
to emerge from this life, then all beyond is an absolute 
void, and a reason for Man’s existence here has not been 
found. If all this apparent preparation is to cease and 
perish forever with this life, then all this masterful 
creation and adorning of the universe with all its splendor 
and magnificence is a farcical fraud, a sickening failure, 
a purposeless expenditure of energy; as Hume says: “A 
riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery.” 


CHAPTER VII 
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 


Amonc the very interesting questions which have puz- 
zled mankind in his reflective moments, since the records 
of such moments have been kept, if not indeed since the 
creation of Man, are the following: 

I—How did Man come on to this earth? 

II—Where did Man first make his appearance on this 
earth? 

I1I—When did Man first make his appearance on this 
earth? 

IV—For what purpose is he here? 

All these questions have been more or less definitely 
answered, some more definitely than others. Perhaps 
we may say the first question has had the most definite 
answer. But the answers are not accepted by all as being 
satisfactory; some philosophers holding that nothing is 
known as to how, where or when Man came upon the 
scene of this world’s activities. The question, Why is 
Man here? seems still more of an enigma, if possible. 
Many do not believe the answers already given to be 
true, and so volumes have been written and various 
theories and opinions have been given on each question. 
The Darwinian theory of evolution is one of the promi- 
nent theories entertained, as a result of discrediting and 
disbelieving the answers already given. 

In the preceding pages good and substantial proof has 
been adduced that Man could not, and therefore did not, 
come on to this earth by the scheme of evolution from 
the lower animal life, as claimed by Darwinism. As there 
is but one other adequate theory, to the writer’s knowl- 
edge, at least, of Man’s origin extant, viz., that of spe- 

184 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 185 


cial creation, for that reason among others, we have ac- 
cepted that as an answer to the first question. 

But, as before stated, this theory of special creation is 
objected to for various reasons; the latest reason that it 
has been the writer’s privilege to see in print is that of 
a reverend gentleman who has discovered that it is un- 
scientific. The reverend gentleman avows that he can- 
not believe in creation because it is unscientific. 

Of course it must be admitted that the matter of crea- 
tion cannot be explained by any science, procedure or 
scientific reasoning of which the human mind is master. 
Creation involves and includes all the sciences with which 
Man has any knowledge,and very probably many scientific 
facts of which Man has no knowledge whatsoever. 
Creation, per se, is the perfection of all scientific mech- 
anism. The physiology of organic life is so supremely 
scientific that Man, with all his vaunted scientific acumen 
and accomplishments, has been five thousand years find- 
ing out just a few of the grosser facts concerning it. 
The scientific, architectural and mechanical complete- 
ness of the human brain and nervous system, involving 
mind, reason, ideation, sensation and motor power to 
execute any and all commands of the soul, is entirely 
outside of Man’s comprehension. The digestive, ab- 
sorptive and circulatory systems in the animal body are 
simply scientific enigmas to Man. And then there is the 
perfect, continuous chemistry and metabolism of the en- 
tire organism, any of which manifestations are among 
the greatest of all scientific problems, and remain to this 
day only enigmas to Man’s boastful scientific acumen. 
_ Life is too scientific for the human mind to comprehend 
even approximately. When these well-known facts are 
considered, it seems the very climax of presumptuous 
bigotry for puny Man to have the assurance to say that 
creation is unscientific. Could mortal man be more ab- 
surdly presumptuous ? 

I think I hear some one say: If the creation story 
is true, all the scientific investigations that have been 
going on for the last century, and especially for the last 
fifty years, amount to nothing, and that there is no in- 
centive to investigation to find out the science of the 


186 WHAT IS MAN? 


universe. It does away with all that field of scientific 
research. It ties Man up to a mere dictum and does not 
allow scientific investigation of the subject. 

Hold on, my friend—do not go too fast. Is science 
anything more than truth? No! The ultimatum of 
science cannot be anything else than truth, possibly il- 
luminated and explained; if it purports to be more than 
that it is not science, but something else. It has been 
conclusively shown that Darwin’s theory of evolution has 
no scientific basis; it has not the basis of truth to stand 
on. It is not science at all, but only speculation. That 
is where the mistake is made—in confounding specula- 
ion with science, and calling something which is not 
truth the truth, in claiming evolution to be a cause. If 
the would-be science does not confirm and illuminate the 
truth, it is not science, but speculation in the field of 
metaphysics; and just as soon as the doctrine of evolu- 
tion transcends the field of phenomenal description and 
claims to give a theory of the productive causes, it be- 
comes metaphysics and must be handed over to philc- 
sophical criticism for adjudication. 

We grant that, to the finite mind, creation is an im- 
penetrable mystery, unexplained and unexplainable. To 
the infinite God, we opine, creation is only the expression 
of His eternal will, and perfectly simple. 

Perhaps the greatest objection to creation, as an ex- 
planation of the origin of Man, arises from the fact that 
some people do not and apparently cannot believe it, be- 
cause they cannot fathom and comprehend it. It is a 
well attested fact, apparently, that even in this enlight- 
ened age, some people who call themselves scientists and 
doctors, of all sizes and kinds, would rather believe that 
Man just “grew up spontaneously,” than to believe that 
Man was and is a special creation by the Creator of the 
universe. Such a mind as that cannot be helped in any 
way; it is beyond all help by persuasion. What it needs 
is a few lessons in elementary physics, which teaches, 
among other primary principles, that there is no effect 
without an adequate cause. 

This world is the concrete expression of an idea that 
preceded it. That idea was the Creator’s idea. The idea, 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 187 


even with the Creator, had to precede the reality. The 
idea is the work of the architect; the working out, or the 
fulfillment of the idea, is the work of the builder (which 
in this case were the same), and is the concrete expres- 
sion of an idea enforced by an adequate executive power 
to bring the reality out of the idea. This adequate ex- 
ecutive power was and is none other than the Creator of 
all things. 

Thus the first question is fully and completely an- 
swered by the special creation. The idea originated with 
God, and He said: “Let us make Man in our own 
image.” And scripture adds: “God created Man from 
the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, and Man became a living soul.” 

The answers to the other three questions will be con- 
sidered in the following pages. 

The antiquity of Man has not been arrived at with any 
certainty, although it is generally conceded by geologists 
and other scientific investigators that Man came into 
being not earlier than the glacial period; but there is 
nothing to show how soon, or how long after that period 
he came. Lyell, in his ‘Antiquity of Man,” says: “From 
the geological standard the date of his birth is exceed- 
ingly modern.” 

Writers on the antiquity of Man have differed in their 
estimates very greatly, varying all the way from a little 
less than six thousand years to about three millions years. 
So nothing definite is brought out in all these estimates ; 
at best they are only guesses, more or less astute. 

The antiquity is shrouded in even greater mystery 
_ than the origin of Man. The oldest date that the litera- 
ture of any nation or people can give us is that of Egypt, 
claimed to be 3,500 years B.C. But, without doubt, that 
date is perhaps centuries before or after Man’s advent 
on this earth Man was well advanced in architecture 
and mechanics at this supposed date, or at this period, 
whether the date is correct or not. (Late Assyriologists 
give the date of clay tablets found at Babylon as 4,500 
years B.C.; but this date is as uncertain as the dates of 
Egyptologists, who vary in their estimates all the way 
from 13,000 to 2,700 years B. C.) Learning and civili- 


188 WHAT IS MAN? 


zation had progressed so far that a written language was 
then used to record the history of this people. Before 
this time hieratic characters had been used by the priests 
only, in writing, for a period of time we know not how 
extended, and was elaborated into the more complete 
system of hieroglyphics, to be followed in time by the 
written language. It must, however, be remembered that 
their written language was only an extended or modified 
hieroglyphics, at best. 

The time that must have elapsed from the creation of 
Man up to the time this record was made we have no 
means of knowing, and allowing that this date of 3,500 
years B. C. is approximately correct, it takes us back 
I,151 years beyond the date set for the flood. More will 
be said on this subject further along. 

Dr. Prichard says: “Many writers who have by no 
means been inclined to raise objections against the au- 
thority of the sacred scriptures, and in particularly 
Michaels, have felt themselves embarrassed by the short- 
ness of the interval between the Noahacic Deluge and 
the period at which the records of various nations com- 
mence, or the earliest date to which their historical 
memorials lead us back. The extravagant claims to a 
remote and almost fathomless antiquity, made by fabu- 
lists of many ancient nations, have vanished before the 
touch of accurate criticism; but after abstracting all that 
is apparently mythological from the early traditions of 
the Indians, Egyptians and some other nations, the prob- 
able history of some of them seems to reach up to a 
period too remote to be reconciled with the short chron- 
ology of Usher and Petavius. This has been so uni- 
versally felt by all those writers who have entered on 
the investigation of primeval history that it is superfluous 
to dwell upon the subject.” 

Sir John Lubbock, Bart., says: ‘Baron Bunsen, one 
of the ablest among those who regard the various forms 
of language as having had a common origin, is forced to 
claim for the human race an antiquity of at least 20,000 
years. I have often been struck, when standing at the 
feet of glaciers, by the great size of the terminal moraines, 
and at the length of time which must have been required 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 189 


for their formation. Let us take as an instance the 
Nigard glacier in the Justedal, on the Sognefjord. The 
Norwegian glaciers no doubt covered formerly a much 
larger area than that which they now occupy. They re- 
treated as the cold diminished; but we have seen that 
Man was present in Western Europe when the general 
temperature was several degrees at least lower than at 
present; and we shall possibly, therefore, be within the 
mark if we suppose that the glacier at Justedal has re- 
treated at least a mile up the valley since the period of 
the river-drift gravels, and the entrance of Man into 
Europe. Now, the terminal moraine of the glacier cov- 
ers the whole of this space with great blocks of stones, 
thousands and hundreds of thousands in number, and 
yet, although all of these have probably been brought 
down in the human period, I could only see a few blocks 
on the lower end of the glacier itself. As far as Den- 
mark is concerned, we must, for the present, rely prin- 
cipally on the double change which has taken place in 
the present vegetation. Beech forests are now the pride 
of the country, and, as far as tradition goes, they have 
always been so. But, as is shown by the peat-bogs, this 
is a mistake. The large peat-mosses do not help us very 
much in this matter, but there are in many of the forests 
small and deep depressions, filled with peat, and called 
skov-mose. These, as might naturally be expected, con- 
tain many trees which grew on the edges, and at length 
fell into them. At the bottom of them is usually an 
amorphous peat, above is a layer of pines—a tree which 
does not grow naturally in Denmark. Higher up the 
-pines disappear and are replaced by oaks and white 
birches, neither of which are now common in Denmark; 
while the upper layer consists principally of the Betule 
Verrucosa and corresponds to the present, which we may 
call the beech period. Professor Steenstrup has found 
stone implements among the stems of the pines; and as 
the caper cailzie, which feeds on the young shoots of 
the pine, has been found in the Kjokkenmoddings, it 
seems likely, to say the least, that these shell-mounds be- 
long to the pine period, and that the three great stages 
of civilization correspond in some measure to these three _ 


190 WHAT IS MAN? 


periods of aborescent vegetation. For one species of tree 
thus displaces another, and in turn to be supplanted by a 
third, would eventually require a great—though at pres- 
ent we have no means of measuring how great—lapse of 
time. | 

“Turning now from Denmark to Switzerland, there are 
two cases in which a more definite estimate has been 
attempted. We must not, indeed, place too much reliance 
on them as yet, but if many calculations made on differ- 
ent plans and data shall agree in the main, we may at 
length come to some approximate conclusion. 

“The first of these calculations we owe to M. Marlot. 
The torrent of Tiniere, at the point where it falls into 
the lake of Geneva, near Villeneuve, has gradually built 
up a cone of gravel and alluvium. In the formation of 
the railway this cone has been bisected for a length of 
one thousand feet, and to a depth, in the central part, 
of about thirty-two feet six inches above the level of the 
railway. The section of the cone thus obtained shows 
a very regular structure, which proves that its formation 
was gradual. It is composed of the same materials (sand, 
gravel and large blocks) as those are even now brought 
down by the stream. The amount of detritus does, in- 
deed, differ considerably from year to year, but in the 
long run the differences compensate for one another, so 
that, when considering long periods and the structure of 
the whole mass, the influence of the temporary variations, 
which arise from meteorological causes, altogether disap- 
pear, and need not, therefore, be taken into account. 
Documents preserved in the archives of Villeneuve show 
that in the year 1710 the stream was dammed up, and its 
course altered, which makes the present cone slightly ir- 
regular. That the change was not of any great antiquity 
is shown by the fact that on the side where the cone was 
protected by the dykes, the vegetable soil, where it has 
been affected by cultivation, does not exceed two or three 
inches in thickness. On the side thus protected by the 
dykes and the railway, cutting has exposed three layers 
of vegetable soil, each of which must, at one time, have 
formed the surface of the cone. They are regularly in- 
tercalated among the gravel and parallel to one another, 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE tgt 


as well as to the present surface of the cone, which it- 
self follows a very regular curve. The first of these an- 
cient surfaces was traced on the south side of the cone 
over a surface of 15,000 square feet. It had a thick- 
ness of four to six inches, and occurred at a depth of 
about four feet below the present surface of the cone. 
This layer, which belonged to the Roman period, con- 
tained tiles and a Roman coin. 

“The second layer was traced over a surface of 25,000 
square feet; it was six inches in thickness, and lay ata 
depth of about ten feet, including the thickness of the 
layer. In it have been found several fragments of un- 
glazed pottery, and a pair of tweezers in bronze. The 
third layer has been traced for 3,000 square feet; it was 
six or seven inches in thickness, and lay at a depth of 
nineteen feet below the present surface. In it were found 
some fragments of very rude pottery, some pieces of char- 
coal, some broken bones, and a human skeleton with a 
small, round and very thick skull. Fragments of charcoal 
were even found a foot deeper, and it is also worthy of 
notice that no trace of tiles was found below the upper 
layer of earth: 

“Towards the center of the cone the three layers dis- 
appear, since at this part the torrent has the most force, 
and has deposited the coarsest material, even some blocks 
as much as three feet in diameter. The farther we go 
from this central region, the smaller are the materials 
deposited, and the more easily might a layer of earth, 
formed since the last inundations, be covered over by 
-fresh deposits. Thus at a depth of ten feet, in 
the gravel on the south of the cone, at a part 
where the layer of earth belonging to the bronze 
age had already disappeared, two unrolled bronze imple- 
ments were discovered. They had probably been retained 
by their weight, when the earth which once covered them 
was washed away by the torrent. After disappearing 
towards the center of the cone, the three layers reappear 
on the north side, at a slightly greater depth, but with 
the same regularity and the same relative position. The 
layer of the stone age was but slightly interrupted, while 


192 WHAT IS MAN? 


that of the bronze era was easily distinguished by its 
peculiar character and color. 

“It must be confessed that the starting point of this 
argument, viz., the so-called ‘Roman’ layer, is far from 
being satisfactorily determined. It is quite possible that 
the tiles were used in Switzerland before the Roman 
period; it is probable that they continued in use to a 
later period. The coin found in the Roman layer was so 
much worn as to be undeterminable; it had, therefore, 
probably been long in use. M. Uhlmann has argued that 
the bones found in the lower layer are not such as we 
should expect to find in a stone age deposit, since they 
are not so much discolored as those from the stone age 
Pfahlbauten, and all belong to domestic animals. Only 
fourteen determinable fragments, however, were found, 
and these several probably belonged to a single indi- 
vidual. Moreover, the condition of the bones from a 
peat-moss cannot fairly be compared with those which 
had been lying in a material such as that forming the 
cone of the Tiniere. 

“M. Marlot did not disguise from himself that there 
were certain elements of doubt in the case; but on the 
whole it seemed to him that the phenomena were so regu- 
lar and so well marked that he was justified in applying 
to them a calculation with some little confidence of at 
least approximate accuracy. Making some allowances, 
for instance, admitting three hundred years instead of 
one hundred and fifty for the period since the embank- 
mient, and taking the Roman period as representing an 
antiquity of from sixteen to eighteen centuries, he ob- 
tains for the age of bronze an antiquity of from 2,900 
years to 4,200 years; for that of the stone period from 
4,700 to 7,000 years; and for the whole cone an age of 
from 7,400 to 11,000 years. M. Marlot thought that we 
should be most nearly correct in deducting two hundred 
years only for the action of the dykes, and in attributing 
to the Roman layer an antiquity of sixteen centuries; 
that is to say, in referring it to the middle of the third 
century. This would give an antiquity of 3,800 years 
for the bronze age, and 6,400 years for the stone; and, 
on the whole, he is inclined to suppose for the former an 


TITHE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 193 


antiquity of from 3,000 to 4,000 years, and for the latter 
of from 5,000 to 7,000 years.” 

It would really seem that the data from which the 
computations of time are made are so nearly related to 
guesswork, and then the conclusions were so loosely 
drawn as to render them worthless in determining the 
antiquity of Man in Europe. 

The history of the human remains from the cavern in 
the Neanderthal may best be given in the words of their 
original describer, Dr. Schaafthausen, as translated by 
Mr. Busk: 

“In the early part of the year of 1857, a human skele- 
ton was discovered in a limestone cave in the Neander- 
thal, near Hochdal, between Dusseldorf and Elbenfeld. 

Dr. Fuhlrott, to whom science is indebted for 

the preservation of these bones, which were not at first 
considered as human, and into whose possession they aft- 

erwards came, brought the cranium from Elbenfeld to 
Bonn, and entrusted it to me for more accurate ana- 
tomical examination. At the general meeting of the 
Natural History Society of Prussian Rhineland and West- 
phalia, at Bonn, on the second day of June, 1857, Dr. 
Fuhlrott himself gave a full account of the locality, and 
of the circumstances under which the discovery was made. 
He was of the opinion that the bones might be regarded 
as fossil; and on coming to this conclusion, he laid special 
stress upon the existence of dendritic deposits with which 
their surface was covered, and which were first noticed 
upon them by Professor Mayer. To this communication 
I appended a brief report on the results of my anatomical 
examunation of the bones. The conclusions at which I 
arrived were: First, that the extraordinary form of the 
skull was due to a natural conformation hitherto not 
known to exist, even in the most barbarous races. Sec- 
ond, that these remarkable human remains belonged to a 
period antecedent to the time of the Celts and Germans, 
and were in all probability derived from one of the 
wild races of Northwestern Europe spoken of by Latin 
writers ; and which were encountered as autochthones by 
German immigrants. Third, that it was beyond doubt 
that these human relics were traceable to a period at 


194 WHAT IS MAN? 


which the latest animals of the diluvium still existed; but 
that no proof of this assumption, nor, consequently, of 
their so-termed fossil condition, was offered by the cir- 
cumstances under which the bones were discovered. 

“As Dr. Fuhlrott has not yet published his description 
of these circumstances, I borrow the following account of 
them from one of his letters. A small cave or grotto, 
high enough to admit a man, and about fifteen feet deep 
from the entrance, which is seven or eight feet wide, 
exists in the southern wall of the gorge of the Neander- 
thal, as it is termed, at a distance of about one hundred 
feet from the Dussel, and about sixty feet above the bot- 
tom of the valley. In its earlier and uninjured condi- 
tion, this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying in 
front of it, and from which the rocky wall descended al- 
most perpendicularly into the river. It could be reached, 
though with difficulty, from above. The uneven floor 
was covered to a depth of four or five feet with a de- 
posit of mud, sparingly intermixed with rounded frag- 
ments of chert. In the removing of this deposit, the 
bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, 
placed nearest the entrance of the cavern; and farther 
in, the other bones, lying in the same horizontal plane. 
Of this J] am assured, in the most positive terms, by two 
laborers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and 
who were questioned by me on the spot. At first no 
idea was entertained of the bones being human, and it 
was not till several weeks after their discovery that they 
were recognized as such by me and placed in security. 

“But, as the importance of the discovery was not at 
the time perceived, the laborers were very careless in 
collecting, and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and 
to this circumstance it may be attributed that fragments 
merely of the probably perfect skeleton came into my 
possession. 

“After an exhausted comparison of the Neanderthal 
cranium with that of many others, both ancient and mod- 
ern, Prof. Schaaffhausen thus concludes: ‘But the human 
bones and cranium from the Neanderthal exceed all the 
rest in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to 
the conclusion of their belonging to a barbarous and sav- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 195 


age race. Whether the cavern in which they were found, 
unaccompanied with any trace of human art, was the 
place of their interment, or whether, like the bones of 
extinct animals elsewhere, they had been washed into it, 
they may still be regarded as the most ancient memorial 
of the early inhabitant of Europe.’ ”’ 

Prof. Huxley, from whose work the quotation is made, 
follows this with a long discussion in which he is trying 
hard to show by the peculiarity of the shape of this 
Neanderthal cranium that these remains were those of a 
primitive stock of mankind more closely related to the 
ape than Man is nowadays; he evidently gives it up as 
a bad job when he says, further along in the discussion 
of the case: “In no sense, then, can the Neanderthal 
bones be regarded as the remains of a human being in- 
termediate between men and apes. In conclusion, I may 
say that the fossil remains of Man hitherto discovered 
do not seem to me to take us apparently nearer to that 
lower pithecoid form, by the modification of which he has 
probably become what he is. And considering what is 
now known of the most ancient races of men; seeing 
that they fashioned flint axes and knives and bone-skew- 
ers of much the same pattern as those fabricated by the 
lowest savages at the present day, and that we have 
reason to believe the habits and modes of living of such 
people to have remained the same from the time of the 
Mammoth and the Tichorine Rhinoceros till now, I do 
not know that this result is other than might be expected. 
Where, then, must we look for primeval Man? Was 
the oldest Homo sapiens pliocene or miocene, or yet more 
. ancient?” 

The above quotation has been introduced to show, par- 
ticularly, the antiquity of Man in Europe. Notwith- 
standing no estimate has been given as to the age in which 
lived the Man whose skeleton furnished the Neanderthal 
specimen, it is evident that Prof. Huxley considered the 
remains to have been very ancient, possibly of the plio- 
cene, miocene, or even an earlier date. 

The foregoing illustrate a few of the mile-stones in the 
record of the antiquity of Man in Europe, as found in 
the earth’s crust. They are records not made by the hand 


196 WHAT IS MAN? 


of Man, and, therefore, probably not contaminated in any 
way, until it comes to the interpretation, as to the years 
that have passed since the death of these men whose 
skeletons have been thus found. In these cases there are 
absolutely no data to give any kind of a cue by which 
the time may be estimated, and, of course, the time can 
only be guessed at; it might be closely approximated or 
not. It has been estimated with much liberality in re- 
sults; they place Man in Europe at from 3,800 years to 
9,500 years B.C. 

It is not probable that Europe was the cradle of the 
human race, for several reasons. The first is climatic. 
The climate would be too rigorously cold in the winter 
season for primitive Man to endure, inasmuch as it is 
estimated that he did not know enough to build a fire 
for several centuries, which would include many gen- 
erations. Secondly, there would be nothing for him to 
subsist on for at least eight months out of the year. 
Thirdly, historical evidences are thought to show that 
Europe was sparsely settled when the East was densely 
populated. 

The dispersion of the race could not have taken place 
from Europe, as the birthplace and center, with the re- 
sults as history first finds the races of men. Historical 
evidences seem to show conclusively that civilization had 
far advanced in Egypt, at least, at the time when it is 
thought the first human form arrived from the East into 
Europe. Then the race of people who are thought to 
have been the first in Europe could not have been the 
ancestors of the Eastern peoples. 

Sir John Lubbock, Bart., observes: “We must not, 
indeed, attach too much importance to these calculations ; 
but they appear to indicate that at least 6,000 to 7,000 
years ago Switzerland was already inhabited by men who 
used polished stone implements; but how long they had 
been there, or how many centuries elapsed before the 
discovery of metal, we have as yet no evidence to show. 

“These figures, however, only give us a minimum, and 
a much greater antiquity was obtained by Mr. Horner 
as the result of his Egyptian researches, which were un- 
dertaken at the joint expense of the Royal Society of the 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EUROPE 1097 


Egyptian Government. Every year the Nile, during its 
periodic overflow, deposits a certain amount of fine mud, 
and even at the time of Herodotus it was inferred that 
Egypt had formerly been an arm of the sea, filled up 
gradually and became converted into dry land by the mud 
brought down from the upper country.” 


CHAPTER VIII 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT—SCIENTIFIC ORIGIN OF 
LANGUAGE—EGYPTIAN LITERATURE—-MAN’S 
PRESENT STATUS BEGUN 


CONTINUING, Sir John Lubbock says: “In the great 
work on Egypt which we owe to the French philosophers 
who commanded Napoleon’s expedition to that country, 
an attempt was made to estimate the secular elevation 
thus produced, 2.e., by the annual deposit of mud from 
the overflow of the Nile, and it was assumed to be five 
inches in a century. This general average was consis- 
tent, however, with great differences at different parts, 
and Mr. Horner, therefore, did not consider himself 
justified in applying this estimate to particular cases, 
even if he had been satisfied with the evidence on which 
it rested. He preferred to examine the accumulation 
which had taken place round monuments of known age, 
and selected two—namely, the obelisk at Heliopolis and 
the statue of Rameses II, in Memphis. The obelisk was 
‘erected 2,300 years B.C., and adding 1850, the year when 
the observation was made, we have 4,150 years in which 
the eleven feet of sediment were deposited, which is at 
the rate of 3.18 inches in a century.’ But Mr. Horner 
himself admits that entire reliance cannot be placed on 
the conclusion, principally because it is possible that the 
site originally chosen for the temple and city of Heliopolis 
was a portion of land somewhat raised above the level of 
the rest of the desert. He relies, therefore, principally 
on the evidence supplied by the colossal statue in Mem- 
phis. In this case the present surface is ten feet six and 
three-quarter inches above the base of the platform on 
which the statue stood. 

“Assuming that the platform was sunk fourteen and 

198 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT — 199 


three-quarter inches below the surface of the ground at 
the time it was laid, we have a depth of sediment from 
the present surface to that level of nine feet four inches. 
Rameses reigned between 1394 and 1328 B.C., which 
would give an antiquity of 3,215 years, and consequently 
a mean increase of 3%4 inches ina century. Having thus 
obtained an approximate measure of the rate of deposit 
in that part of the Nile Valley, Mr. Horner dug several 
pits to a considerable depth, and, in one of them, close 
to the statue and at a depth of thirty-nine feet, a piece of 
pottery was found, which upon the above data would 
indicate an antiquity of about 13,000 years. 

“In many other excavations pieces of pottery and other 
indications of Man were found at even greater depths, 
but it must be confessed that there are several reasons 
which render the calculations somewhat doubtful. For 
instance, it is impossible to ascertain how far the pedestal 
of the statue was inserted into the ground; Mr. Horner 
has allowed fourteen and three-quarter inches, but if it 
was deeper, the rate of deposition would be diminished 
and the age increased. On the other hand, if the statue 
was on raised ground, of course the reverse would be 
the case.” 

Right here I wish to notice that Mr. Adhemar claims 
that the last epoch of greatest cold must have been 11,100 
years ago, since which time the climate of our hemisphere 
gradually improved up to the year 1246 A.D., when it 
was most genial, and after which date it has, in his opin- 
ion, gradually deteriorated. 

So far as the writer has seen, it has not been decided 
whether the last glacial period was on the northern or 
southern hemisphere; but it is claimed that those periods 
alternate between the northern and southern hemispheres. 
Mr. Adhemar says: “It is in the northern hemisphere 
that I find the greatest evidence of alternation.” He 
dwells much on the increase, during the last few cen- 
turies, of the ice in Greenland, and points out that “the 
vine cultivation does not extend so far northwards as 
was once the case.” As Greenland is in the northern 
hemisphere, and the cold is increasing there, it would 
seem to show that the northern hemisphere would be the 


200 WHAT IS MAN? 


next in turn to be ice-capped for some centuries. The 
point I wish to make is this: It is hardly possible that 
Man made his advent on this earth before the last glacial 
period and withstood those rigorous times, unless it be 
granted that the ice-cap did not extend to the equator ; 
but rather it could not have come close enough to the 
equator to influence the temperature there appreciably. 
It is evident that estimates giving to Man an almost fath- 
omless antiquity may be quite unreliable; indeed, it may 
be safely said that any estimate that carries us back be- 
yond the glacial period is very probably erratic. 

The history of Egypt is thought to date back to the 
most remote antiquity of Man. The earliest Egyptians of 
which we have any knowledge are said to have believed 
that there had been a time when their ancestors were sav- 
ages and cannibals, dwelling in those caves in the ridges 
of sandstone which border the valley of the Nile on the 
east; and that their greatest benefactors were Osiris 
and Isis, who raised them into a devout and cultivated 
and civilized people; eating bread, drinking wine and 
beer, and planting the olive. For this reason the worship 
of Osiris and Isis as gods became general throughout 
Egypt. According to Manetho, a native Egyptian his- 
torian of the later days of antiquity, the first rulers of 
Egypt were gods, spirits, demigods and manes, or human 
souls; which amounts to saying that the earliest history 
of Egypt, like that of most other countries, is unknown, 
or involved in the obscurity and uncertainty of legend 
or fable. . 

“The history of this great ancient people has been 
derived from several sources; the historical writings of 
the ancient Greek historians, Herodotus and Diodorus, 
and the native Egyptian priest, Manetho, and in modern 
times from the deciphering of the inscriptions on the 
Egyptian monuments and from the discovery of records 
on rolls of papyrus found in the tombs. 

“The ancient sources of Egyptian chronology are ob- 
scure and conflicting; the Roman historians represented 
the Egyptians as the first race of men. When Herodotus 
visited Egypt, about the middle of the fifth century before 
Christ, the native priests read to him, from rolls of papy- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT_ 201 


rus, the names of three hundred and forty-one kings, 
from Menes, the founder of the monarchy, to Seti. In the 
great temple of Thebes the priests showed Herodotus 
the wooden images of three hundred and forty-five priests, 
who, from father to son, had held the sacerdotal office 
during the reigns of those kings. From these data Hero- 
dotus estimated the antiquity of Egypt to have been 
nearly twelve thousand years, counting three hundred 
and forty generations from Menes to Seti, with three 
generations to each century, and reckoning a century and 
a half from the beginning of Seti’s reign to the Persian 
conquest of Egypt, 525 B.C., which latter event had oc- 
curred about seventy-five years before the visit of the 
‘father of history’ to this celebrated land. According 
to this computation, based upon the recorded traditions 
of the Egyptian priests, the founding of the Egyptian 
monarchy by Menes occurred more than 12,500 years 
before Christ. 

“In the third century before Christ, Manetho com- 
piled a history of his country in three volumes, giving 
the reigns of all the kings from the founding of the mon- 
archy by Menes to the first Persian conquest of Egypt, 
525 B.C., through twenty-six dynasties, and through four 
more dynasties until the final Persian conquest in 347 
B.C., making thirty dynasties in all. According to Mane- 
tho’s calculation, the founding of the kingdom by Menes 
occurred in the year 5706 B.C., in the Egyptian reckon- 
ing’, and in the year 5702 B.C. of the Julian calendar. 

“In the past century the world’s knowledge of this 
famous land has been immensely extended by the dis- 
- covery of the art of deciphering the inscriptions which 
this ancient people lavishly carved on their buildings and 
monuments, particularly their obelisks, painted on the 
frescoed insides of their tombs, and actually cut on near- 
ly all objects of art or use. These writings and carvings 
were in the character of what is known as hieroglyphics, 
a Greek word signifying sacred carvings or priestly 
writing. The knowledge of the reading of these inscrip- 
tions perished with the decay of ancient Egypt, and for 
centuries the term hieroglyphics was synonymous with 
everything mysterious, 


202 WHAT IS MAN? 


“The unveiling of this mystery was brought about by 
an interesting incident. During Bonaparte’s invasion of 
Egypt in 1798, a French engineer, while engaged in dig- 
ging the foundation of a fort near the Rosetta mouth 
of the Nile, discovered a stone tablet about three feet 
long, on which was carved an inscription in three differ- 
ent characters. This tablet has become celebrated as the 
Rosetta Stone. The lower of the three texts was 
Greek, and easily translated; the upper text was in the 
hieroglyphic style, while the middle text was in a char- 
acter since styled demotic, meaning the writing of the 
common people. 

“Copies of this inscription were circulated among the 
learned men of Europe, and after long and patient ef- 
forts the alphabet of the hieroglyphics was discovered ; 
so that these carved inscriptions on old Egyptian works 
of art and architecture can now be easily and correctly 
read, thus giving an abundance of new light on the his- 
tory of this wonderful land of antiquity. The Rosetta 
Stone was carved about 196 B.C., and was an ordinance 
of the Egyptian priests decreeing honors to Ptolemy 
Epiphanes, one of the famous Greek dynasty who gov- 
erned Egypt during the first three centuries before Christ, 
and accounts for the existence of the three texts on the 
tablet. The great task of deciphering these inscriptions 
was chiefly the work of the noted French savant, Cham- 
pollian. The key to the deciphering of the inscriptions 
on the Rosetta Stone was that it was stated in the Greek, 
that the last was a transcription of the first two. The 
Rosetta Stone is now in the British Museum. 

“On account of the obscurity and uncertainty of early 
Egyptian chronology, modern historians and Egyptolo- 
cists have widely differed as to the antiquity of this most 
ancient monarchy. The French Egyptologists, headed by 
M. Mariette, place the founding of the first dynasty by 
Menes at 5004 B.C. The German Orientalists and Egyp- 
tologists differ, Bockh fixing the date at 5702 B.C., Dr. 
Brugsch at 4455 B.C., Lauth at 4157 B.C., Prof. Lepsius 
Bt smae. ob Cy Baron Bunsen at 3059 B.C., and Dr. 
Duncker at 3233 B.C. The English Ezyptologists, at the 
head of whom stands Sir Gardner Wilkinson, regard the 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 203 


year 2700 B.C. as about the approximate date.” (Lib. of 
Univ. His.) 

From the foregoing it will be seen that even the his- 
torical age of Egyptian habitation by Man is only ap- 
proximately known in years. Technically it is unknown, 
and practically it is involved in the mazes of conjecture; 
to say nothing of their prehistoric habitation of the coun- 
try. Nevertheless, Egypt has been an object of interest 
to mankind in every age, as the birthplace of civilization 
and science. We find them a highly civilized people at 
the earliest dawn of history. It would necessarily seem 
that civilization was somewhat advanced when the first 
monarchy was formed. Menes was succeeded by Ateta, 
his son, who was skilled in medicine, and wrote works on 
anatomy, of which portions still exist and are regarded 
as the oldest writings on the subject, so said. The Egyp- 
tian priesthood embraced an order including many pro- 
fessions and occupations. They alone were acquainted 
with the arts of reading and writing and with medicine 
and other sciences. They cultivated the science of medi- 
cine from the earliest ages. The universal practice of 
embalming was exercised by physicians, thus enabling 
them to study the effects of various diseases by examin- 
ing the body after death. History tells us that it was the 
custom of Asiatic monarchs to send to Egypt for their 
physicians, and the fertile soil of the Nile Valley at one 
time furnished drugs for the whole civilized world. Even 
in our own time, the characters used by druggists to 
denote drachms and ounces are the Egyptian ciphers, 
. adopted by the Arabs, and by them transmitted to pos- 
terity. 

Perhaps the people of to-day, especially in Europe and 
America, would not consider the ancient Egyptians as a 
civilized people, but the eminent German Egyptologist, 
Brugsch, says: “The Egyptians had a high moral stand- 
ard. The forty-two laws of Egyptian religion contained 
in the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead, fall short 
in nothing of the teachings of Christianity.” The same 
authority says: “Moses in compiling his code of laws 
did only translate into Hebrew the religious precepts 


204 WHAT IS MAN? 


which he found in the sacred books of the Egyptians, 
among whom he had been brought up. 

“In the narrow strip of country, ‘The gift of the Nile,’ 
only seven miles wide, and five hundred and twenty-six 
miles long, were seven millions of inhabitants. The Nile 
Valley is studded with the ruins of ancient cities. Mem- 
phis, the chief city of Middle Egypt, was situated about 
twelve miles south of the apex of the delta, and, as has 
been said, was founded by Menes, the first Egyptian king. 
In the vicinity of Memphis are located the most splendid 
of the pyramids, which extend for seventy miles on the 
west bank of the Nile, and among which are the famous 
Pyramids of Ghizeh. In this vicinity is also the great 
Sphinx, or woman-headed lion, one hundred and forty- 
six feet long and thirty-six feet wide across the shoul- 
ders. Here are also the ruins of the famous labyrinth, 
and miles on miles of rock-hewn temples. The magnifi- 
cent and stately Thebes, the one-hundred-gated city of 
Upper Egypt, is said to have extended over twenty-three 
miles along the river banks. On its site are the villages 
of Karnak and Luxor, where the ruins of magnificent 
and spacious temples, splendid palaces, colossal statues, 
avenues of obelisks and lines of sphinxes, tombs of kings 
hewn out of the solid rock, subterranean catacombs and 
the gigantic statue of Memnon, still bear witness to the 
immense size and splendor of this great and celebrated 
city, whose ruins extend for miles along both banks of 
the Nile. 

“The ancient Egyptians had a wonderful instinct for 
building, and architecture was the greatest of all their 
arts. The distinguishing features were massiveness and 
grandeur, in which they have never been surpassed. This 
great people delighted in pyramids, sphinxes, obelisks 
and stupendous palaces and temples, with massive col- 
umns and spacious halls of solemn and gloomy grandeur, 
in which our largest cathedrals could stand, adorned with 
elaborately sculptured colossal statues, and connected 
with which were avenues of sphinxes and lines of obe- 
lisks. Their pyramids are the oldest, as well as the 
largest and most wonderful of human works yet remain- 
ing, and the beauty of their masonry, Wilkinson declares, 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGY PT. 205 


has never been surpassed. An obelisk of a single stone 
now standing in Egypt weighs three hundred tons, and 
a colossus of Rameses the Great, nearly nine hundred 
tons; and Herodotus describes a monolithic temple 
weighing five thousand tons, which was carried hundreds 
of miles on sledges, as were the huge blocks of stone, 
sometimes weighing sixteen thousand tons each, with 
which the pyramids were built. In one instance two 
thousand men were employed three years in conveying 
a single stone from the quarry to the structure in which 
it was to be placed. There is a roof of a doorway at 
Karnak covered with sandstone blocks forty feet long. 
Sculpture and bas-reliefs, thirty-five or forty centuries 
old, in which the granite is cut with exquisite delicacy, 
are yet to be seen throughout this famous land. The 
pyramids were all built on strictly scientific and mathe- 
matical principles. 

“The obelisks, so called on account of their peculiar 
shape, were tall and slender monoliths erected at the 
gateways of temples, one standing on each side. From 
the quarries of Syene they were floated down the Nile 
on rafts during an annual overflow. They were formed 
in accordance with a certain rule of proportion, and were 
from twenty to one hundred and twenty-three feet high. 
The names and titles of the kings who erected them were 
recorded in hieroglyphic carvings on the sides. An obe- 
lisk at Luxor was taken to Paris in 1833 and erected in 
the Place de la Concorde. Several others had previously 
been removed to Rome. Two famous obelisks, after 
standing eighteen centuries at the gate of the temple of 
_ the sun at Heliopolis, where they had been erected by 
King Thothmes III, were removed to Alexandria by the 
Romans just after their conquest of Egypt, in the time 
of Augustus Cesar. These were known at Alexandria 
as Cleopatra’s Needles, and one was transported to Lon- 
don a few years ago. The other was shortly after trans- 
ported to New York, and is now one of the objects of 
interest greeting the eye of the beholder in Central Park. 

“Egypt, renowned for its discoveries in art and science, 
was the ancient world’s university, where Moses, Lycur- 
gus and Solon, Pythagoras and Plato, Herodotus and 


206 , WHAT IS MAN? 


Diodorus—lawgivers, philosophers and historians—were 
students. The ancient Egyptians had made considerable 
progress in the sciences, particularly astronomy, geome- 
try, arithmetic, medicine and anatomy. Their knowledge 
of astronomy is proven by the accuracy with which they 
calculated solar and lunar eclipses; by their mode of reck- 
oning time and their knowledge of the length of the year 
as being three hundred and sixty-five days; by their 
knowledge of the spherical shape of the earth; and by 
their ability to compute latitude and longitude, as de- 
termined by the fact that the tomb of Cheops, Suphis, or 
Kufu, the king who built the largest of the three great 
pyramids of Ghizeh, is located exactly on the 30th parallel 
of north latitude. 

“The ancient Egyptians had attained great skill in 
many of the finer mechanical arts, such as pottery, the 
manufacture of glass and porcelain; dyeing and the 
making of linen and cotton goods; they likewise excelled 
in polishing and engraving of precious stones, and 
metallurgy. Their walls and ceilings were painted in 
beautiful patterns, which moderns yet imitate; and in the 
production of useful and ornamental articles they have 
never been surpassed, either in ancient or modern times. 

“The language of the ancient Egyptians was related 
to the language of the Semitic nations, but differed from 
them in many particulars. There were different dialects 
in Upper and Lower Egypt. 

“The Egyptians practiced the art of writing far more 
extensively than any other ancient people. The pyra- 
mids and monuments, even of the most remote antiquity, 
bear inscriptions, and it was the custom to mark every 
article of use or ornament. ‘There are three kinds of 
writing in use. For monumental inscriptions hiero- 
glyphics were used. For documents the writing was 
executed on leaves of papyrus. The writing was executed 
with a reed pen. The hieroglyphics were traced in black, 
but commenced in red, and the sculptured hieroglyphics 
were also embellished with colors. Much of the ancient 
literature has come down to us in a fragmentary form. 
The remnants of papyrus manuscripts of the most an- 


THE ANTIQUITY.OF MAN—EGYPT 207 


cient Theban dynasties are still in existence. The pro- 
fessional scribes were the priestly class. 

“The ancient Egyptians surpassed all other nations in 
their love for recording all human events and actions. 
They preserved in writing, on papyrus, a record of all 
the details of private life with surprising: zeal, method and 
regularity. Every year, month, week and day had its 
record of transactions. This inclination fully accounts 
for Egypt being the monumental land. No other human 
records—whether of Chaldea, India or China—go as far 
back into the remote antiquity as do those of Egypt.” 

Baron Bunsen says: “The genuine Egyptian writing 
is fully as old as Menes, the founder of the old empire. 
In spite of the ravages of time, and though systematic 
excavation has scarcely yet commenced, we _ possess 
chronological records of a date prior to any period of 
which manuscripts are preserved, or the art of writing 
existed in any other quarter. 

“The most ancient mural paintings reveal a state of the 
arts of civilization so perfect as to excite the wonder of 
archeologists, who therefore knew how few things are 
new under the sun. We find houses with doors, windows 
and verandas, likewise barns for grain, vineyards, gar- 
dens, fruit trees, etc. We also see pictures of marching 
troops, armed with spears and shields, bows, slings, dag- 
gers, axes, maces and the boomerang. We also notice 
coats of mail, standards, war-chariots, and the assault 
on forts by means of scaling-ladders. 

“The ancient Egyptian tombs likewise exhibit scenes 
of domestic life and customs similar to those of our own 
_times. We observe monkeys trained to gather fruit from 
the trees in an orchard, houses furnished with a great 
variety of chairs, tables, ottomans, carpets, couches, as 
elegant and elaborate as any used at the present day. 
There are also comic pictures of parties, where ladies 
and gentlemen are sometimes represented as being the 
worse for wine; of dances, where ballet-girls in short 
dresses perform pirouettes of the modern kind; of exer- 
cises in wrestling, games of ball, games of chance like 
chess or checkers, throwing knives at mark; of modern 
thimble-rig, wooden dolls for children, curiously carved 





208 | WHAT IS MAN? 


wooden boxes, dice and toy-balls. We have likewise pre- 
sented to our view men and women playing on harps, 
flutes, pipes, cymbals, trumpets, drums, guitars and tam- 
bourines. We find glass to have been in general use by 
this great people nearly four thousand years ago, and we 
see painted pictures of glass-blowing and glass bottles. 
The most skilful Venetian glass-workers of to-day can- 
not rival some of the old Egyptian glass-work; as the 
Egyptians could combine all colors in one cup, place 
gold between two surfaces of glass, and finish in glass 
details of feathers, which cannot be distinguished with- 
out the microscope. The Egyptians likewise imitated 
with success the colors of precious stones, and were even 
able to make statues thirteen feet high, closely resembling 
an emerald. They made mosaics in glass of colors of 
wonderful brilliancy. They were able to cut glass in 
the most ancient periods. They could spin and weave 
and color cloth, and understood the use of mordants, as 
in modern calico printing. They tanned leather and 
made shoes; and the shoemakers are represented as work- 
ing on their benches precisely as in our own day. Their 
carpenters used axes, saws, chisels, drills, planes, rulers, 
plummets, squares, hammers, nails, and hones for sharp- 
ening. They likewise knew the use of glue in cabinet- 
making, and there are paintings in veneering, in which 
a piece of thin dark wood is fastened by glue to a coarser 
piece of wood. Their boats were propelled by sails on 
yards and masts, as well as by oars. They used the blow- 
pipe in making gold chains and ornaments. They had 
gold and silver rings, and also used gold and silver for 
money, and weighed them accurately on carefully con- 
structed scales. Their hieroglyphics are carved on the 
hardest granite, so delicately and accurately as to indi- 
cate the use of metallic cutting instruments harder than 
our best steel. The siphon was known to these people 
as early as the fifteen century before Christ. In the 
tombs are found sandals, shoes and low boots, some of 
them elegant. Loose robes, ear-rings, finger-rings, brace- 
lets, armlets, anklets and gold necklaces were worn by 
women. Vases for ointments, mirrors, combs, needles, 
etc., are found in the tombs. The prevalence of the pass- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 209 


port system is also shown by the careful descriptions of 
the persons contained in the deeds, precisely in the same 
style as those required by travelers in Europe to-day. 
The description of Egyptian customs and manners here 
given is but a small part of that revealed to us in paint- 
ing or sculpture in the tombs, or upon the walls of 
Thebes or Beni-Hassen. 

“At their feasts, which were numerous among the 
rich, the host and hostess presided. The seats were sin- 
gle or double chairs, but numbers sat on the ground. The 
servants decked the guests with lotus flowers, and placed 
meat, cakes, fruits and other articles of food on small 
tables in front of them. Hired musicians and dancers 
entertained the company. 

“The rich rode in chariots, or in heavy carriages drawn 
by oxen. Women received more respectful treatment and 
enjoyed more freedom in Egypt than in any of the 
Asiatic nations. Games of ball were played by females, 
as well as by males, and one picture shows us that the 
loser was obliged to allow the winner to ride on her 
back. 

“Egyptian shops furnished many curious scenes. Poul- 
terers suspended geese and other fowls from a pole in 
front of the shop, which also supported an awning to 
shade them from the sun. 

“Egyptian artists and scribes put their reed pens be- 
hind their ears when examining the effect of the paint- 
ing or listening to a person on business, as in our own 
times. The paintings in some instances represent the 
scribe at work with a spare pen behind his ear, his tablet 
_on his knee, and his writing-case and inkstand on the table 
in front of him. 

“The dress of the higher class consisted of the shenti, 
a short linen or woolen garment, folded or fluted, and 
worn around the loins, being fastened with a girdle. A 
fine linen robe, reaching to the feet, was over this, being 
provided with long sleeves reaching to the elbows. The 
second girdle fastened the outer robe to the waist. The 
arms and lower parts of the legs were left bare. Sandals 
or shoes of leather, or of palm-leaves or papyrus stalks, 
were worn by the rich of both sexes. The Egyptian lords 


210 WHAT IS MAN? 


wore ornaments, such as collars of beads or gold chains 
round their necks, armlets and bracelets of gold round 
the arms, rings upon the fingers, and anklets round their 
ankles. 

“The most important trades among the Egyptians were 
those of building, stone-cutting, weaving, furniture- 
making, chariot-making, metallurgy. The builders worked 
in wood, stone and brick. The mechanical excellence 
of their works is fully attested by their continuance to 
the present day. 

“The Egyptians carried on an extensive commerce with 
other countries, importing gold, ivory, ebony, skins and 
slaves from Ethiopia and central Africa; incense from 
Arabia, and spices and gems from India; and exporting, 
in exchange for these articles, grain and cloth. 

“But, distinctively, the Egyptians were a race of build- 
ers, and they built with a resolve for permanence which 
has never since been approached. And upon their walls, 
upon column, plinth and architrave, and throughout the 
midnight recesses of their excavated tombs, they in- 
scribed their annals. 

“When the ancients recounted the seven wonders of 
the world, they placed at the head of the list the Great 
Pyramid of Ghizeh. It is situated in Egypt, not far from 
the present city of Cairo. No other building in the world 
equals it in size. One of the leading granite men of this 
country, who made a personal inspection of the Great 
Pyramid, says: ‘There are blocks of stone in the Pyra- 
mid which weigh three or four times as much as one 
of the obelisks. I saw a stone whose estimated weight 
was 880 tons. There are stones in it thirty feet in length 
which fit so closely together that you may run a penknife 
over the surface without discovering the breaks between 
them. They are not laid with mortar, either. There is now 
no machinery so perfect that it will make two surfaces 
thirty feet in length which will meet together as these won- 
derful stones in the Great Pyramid meet. It covers an 


area of about thirteen acres. It is 486 feet high and 764 © 
feet broad at its base. It is estimated that the Great — 


Pyramid weighs six million tons, that to move it would 


require sixty thousand steam engines, each drawing one — 





THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT ait 


hundred tons. In fact, the wealth of Egypt is not suf- 
ficient to pay laborers to demolish it. From these facts 
it is evident that, whoever was its great designer, he in- 
tended that it should be an enduring monument.’ ” 

By some men the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh is given a 
prophetic significance which, if true, would eliminate 
Man as the architect, but it was undoubtedly built by 
men. Mr. Russell, author of “The Millennial Dawn 
Series,” says: “Viewed from whatever standpoint we 
please, the Great Pyramid is certainly the most remark- 
able building in the world; but in the light of an investi- 
gation which has been in progress for the past thirty-two 
years, it acquires new interest to every Christian ad- 
vanced in the study of God’s Word; for it seems in a 
remarkable manner to teach, in harmony with all the 
prophets, an outline of the plan of God, past, present and 
future. It should be remembered that, aside from the 
Great Pyramid here referred to, there are others, some 
of stone and some of brick, but alt of them are mere at- 
tempts to copy the Great Pyramid and are in every way 
inferior—in size, accuracy and internal arrangement. 
And it has been demonstrated that, unlike the Great 
Pyramid, they contain no symbolic features, but were 
evidently designed and used as sepulchers for the royal 
families of Egypt. 

“The Great Pyramid, however, proves to be a store- 
house of important truths—scientific, historic and pro- 
phetic—and its testimony is found to be in perfect accord 
with the Bible, expressing the prominent features of its 
- truths in beautiful and fitting symbols. It is by no means 
an addition to the written revelation: that revelation is 
complete and perfect and needs no addition. But it is a 
strong corroborative witness of God’s plan; and few 
students can carefully examine it, marking the harmony 
of its testimony with that of the written Word, without 
feeling impressed that its construction was planned and 
directed by the same divine wisdom, and that it is the 
~ pillar of witness referred to by the prophet Isaiah, 19 :10- 
20: ‘In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in 
the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border 


212 WHAT IS MAN? 


thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a 
witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.’ ” 

Mr. Russell argues his point in this wise: “If it was 
built under God’s direction, to be His witness to men, we 
might reasonably expect some allusion to it in the written 
Word of God. And yet, since it was evidently a part of 
God’s purpose to keep secret, until the time of the end, 
features of the plan of which it gives testimony, we 
should expect that any reference to it in the scriptures 
would be, as it is, somewhat under cover—to be recog- 
nized only when due to be understood. 

“Isaiah, as above quoted, testifies of an altar and pillar 
in the land of Egypt, which shall be for a sign and for 
4 witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt. 
And the context shows that it shall be a witness im the 
day when the great Saviour and Deliverer shall come to 
break the chains of oppression and to set at liberty sin’s 
captives—of which things our Lord preached at his first 
advent. The scope of this prophecy is but dimly seen, 
however, until Egypt is recognized as a symbol or type 
of the world of mankind, full of vain philosophies, which 
only darken their understandings, but ignorant of the true 
light. As Israel typified the world which shall be de- 
livered from the bondage of sin by the great antitype of 
Moses, and whose sin-offering has been given by the anti- 
type of Aaron, so Egypt represents the empire of sin, the 
dominion of death, which for so long has held in chains of 
slavery many who will be glad to go forth to serve the 
Lord under the leadership of one like unto but greater 
than Moses. 

“Jeremiah (32:20), when speaking of God’s mighty 
works, declares that he hath ‘set signs and wonders in 
the land of Egypt, even unto this day.” God showed 
signs and wonders in Egypt when he brought Israel out 
in triumph; but he also set signs and wonders there, which 
remain even unto this day. The Great Pyramid, we be- 
lieve, is the principal one of these very signs and won- 
ders: and it now begins to speak to scientists in their own 
language, and through them to all men. 

“This ancient structure being thus repeatedly referred 
to in the scriptures, we cannot doubt that, if questioned, 


TITHE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 213 


that ‘witness’ of the Lord in the land of Egypt will bear 
such testimony as will honor Jehovah and fully corre- 
spond with the written Word. We thus introduce this 
‘witness’ because the inspiration of his testimony will 
doubtless be as much disputed as that of the scriptures, by 
the prince of darkness, the god of this world, and those 
whom he blinds of the truth. 


WHY, WHEN AND BY WHOM WAS THE GREAT PYRAMID 
BUILT 


“History, generally, credits the building of the Great 
Pyramid to Cheops or Khufu, but the gentlemen who see 
in the architecture of the Pyramid a prophetic significance 
ascribe it to Melchisedek, the King of Salem, in the time 
of the Hyksos. This is, possibly, not without some show- 
ing of truth. Cheops or Khufu reigned in the fourth 
dynasty at Memphis—2450 to 2250 B.C.—and his reign 
is figured to end at about 2355 B.C., and before the time 
of the Hyksos kings.” 

Mr. Russell continues: “This question has been much 
discussed of late years, from both scientific and scriptural 
standpoints. For thousands of years no satisfactory an- 
swer to the question was discovered. The old theory 
that it was built as a tomb for an Egyptian king is un- 
worthy of credence; for, as we shall see, it required more 
than the wisdom of the present day, to say nothing of 
that of Egypt four thousand years ago, to design such a 
structure. Besides, it contains nothing in the way of 
casket, mummy or inscription. It was not until we had 
- come into the time called Daniel’s prophecy, the Time 
of the End, when knowledge should be increased, and 
the wise should understand God’s plan, that the secrets 
of the Great Pyramid began to be understood, and our 
questions began to have a reasonable answer. 

“The first work of importance on the subject, proving 
that the Great Pyramid possessed scientific features, was 
by Mr. John Taylor, of England, A.D. 1859, since which 
time the attention of many able minds has been given to 
the further study of the testimony of this wonderful 
‘witness,’ especially since Prof. Piazza Smyth, astrono- 


214 WHAT IS MAN? 


mer-royal for Scotland, visited it for the purpose, and for 
several months made its peculiarities a study and gave to 
the world the remarkable facts of its construction and 
measurements, and his conclusions therefrom. To his 
scholarly and scientific work, ‘Our Inheritance in the 
Great Pyramid,’ we are mainly indebted for the data 
made use of in this chapter. 

“A few years after Prof. Smyth’s return came the sug- 
gestion that the Great Pyramid is Jehovah’s ‘witness,’ and 
that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to 
natural science. This was a new thought to Prof. Smyth, 
as well as to others. The suggestion came from a young 
Scotchman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the 
scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that 
prophetic and chronological teachings co-exist in it. Soon 
it became apparent that the subject of its construction 
was to provide in it a record of the divine plan of salva- 
tion, no less than the record of divine wisdom relating to 
astronomical, chronological, geometrical, and other im- 
portant truths. 

“Prof. Smyth has concluded that the Great Pyramid 
was builded in the year 2171 B.C., reaching this conclu- 
sion, first, from astronomical observations. Perceiving 
that the upward passage angles correspond to a telescope, 
and that the ‘entrance passage’ corresponds to an astrono- 
mer’s pointer, he set about to investigate to what particu- 
lar star it could have pointed at any time in the past. 
Calculations showed that a Draconis, the dragon-star, had 
occupied a position in the heavens which looked directly 
down the entrance at midnight of the autumnal equinox, 
B.C. 2170. Then, considering himself as an astronomer 
at that date, with his pointer fixed upon a Draconis, and 
considering the ascending passages as though they were 
a telescope, which they much resemble, he calculated 
what constellation or what notable star would have been 
before his telescope thus fixed at the particular date indi- 
cated by his pointer, and found that it must have been 
the Pleiades. So wonderful a coincidence convinced 
him that the date of the Great Pyramid’s building was 
thus indicated; for a Draconis is no less a symbol of 





THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 215 


sin and Satan than Pleiades is a symbol of God and the 
center of the universe. 

“This conclusion of Prof. Smyth’s as to the date of 
the Great Pyramid’s building was most abundantly cor- 
roborated later by certain measurements, by which the 
Great Pyramid indicates its own date of construction. A 
realization of the fact that the Great Pyramid exhibits a 
wisdom of design which the Egyptians could not have 
possessed—a divine wisdom which must have been 
worked out under the supervision of some inspired serv- 
ant of God—has led to the conjecture that Melchizedek 
was its builder. He was ‘King of Salem and priest of 
the Most High God,’ and as a person and type occupied 
so high a position as to be a blesser of Abraham, who 
also paid him tithes. Of this we can know little, except 
that Melchizedek was a great and peaceful king, and that 
he lived about that time, and not far distant from the 
site of the Great Pyramid. 

“Tt is conjectured that Melchizedek, though not him- 
self an Egyptian, used Egyptian labor for the construc- 
tion of the Great Pyramid. And to some extent the tradi- 
tions of Egypt support such a theory. They reveal the 
fact that Egypt had.a peculiar invasion about this date 
by a people whom tradition merely denominates Hyksos. 
These invaders seem not to have attempted to disturb the 
general government of Egypt, and, after staying a time 
for some purpose not recognized by the tradition, they 
left Egypt as peacefully as they came. These Hyksos 
or peaceful kings are supposed to include Melchizedek, 
and are assumed to have been the builders of the Great 
Pyramid—God’s altar and ‘witness’ in the land of Egypt.” 

Manetho, an Egyptian priest and scribe, is quoted by 
Josephus and others as saying: “We had formerly a 
king whose name was Timaus. In his time it came to 
pass, I know not how, that the deity was displeased with 
us; and there came up from the east, in a strange manner, 
men of ignoble race (not warriors), Hyksos, who had 
the confidence to invade our country and easily subdue 
it by their power without a battle. And when they had 
our rulers in their hands, they demolished the temples of 
the gods.” 


216 WHAT IS MAN? 


THE PECULIAR LOCATION OF THE GREAT PYRAMID 


“The Great Pyramid is situated on an elevated rocky 
plain, overlooking the River Nile, not far from the city 
of Cairo, in Egypt. A remarkable thing in connection 
with its situation is that the delta of the Nile forms a sea- 
coast which in shape is a true quarter circle, with the 
Great Pyramid marking the inner angle. 

“The relationship of the Great Pyramid to the coast 
was discovered by Mr. Henry Mitchel, chief hydrog- 
rapher of the United States Coast Survey, who visited 
Egypt in 1868 to report the progress of the Suez Canal. 
His observations of the regularity of the curvature along 
the whole of Egypt’s northern coast led him to conclude 
that some central point of physical origination was indi- 
cated. On searching for this grand center, he found it 
marked by the Great Pyramid, which led him to exclaim: 
‘That monument stands in a more important physical 
situation than any other building erected by men.’ 

“A line drawn from the entrance passage due north 
would pass through the northernmost point of Egypt’s 
coast; and lines drawn in continuation of the northeast 
and northwest diagonals of the structure would enclose 
the delta’s either side, thus embracing the fan-shaped 
country of lower Egypt. Built upon the northernmost 
edge of the Ghizeh cliff, and looking out over this sector, 
or open fan-shaped land of lower Egypt, it may be truly 
said to be at the very border thereof, as well as in its 
nominal center, as described by the prophet Isaiah. ‘In 
that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst 
of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof 
to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness 
unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.’ Another 
fact worthy of notice is that the Great Pyramid is located 
in the geographical center of the land surface of the 
world—including North and South Americas, unknown 
for centuries after the location and construction of the 
Great Pyramid. 

“Commenting upon the scientific testimony and the lo- 
cation of this majestic ‘witness,’ Rev. Joseph Seiss, D.D., 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 217 


suggests: “There is a yet grander thought embodied in 
this wonderful structure. Of the five points there is one 
of special pre-eminence, in which all its sides and exterior 
lines terminate. It is the summit corner, which lifts its 
solemn index finger to the sun at midday, and by its 
distance from the base tells the mean distance to the sun 
from the earth. And if we go back to the date which 
the Pyramid gives itself, and look for what that finger 
pointed to at midnight, we find a far sublimer indication. 
Science has at last discovered that the sun is not a dead 
center, with planets wheeling round it, but itself station- 
ary. It is now ascertained that the sun is also in motion, 
carrying with it its splendid retinue of comets, planets, 
its satellites and theirs, around some other and vastly 
mightier center. Astronomers are not yet fully agreed 
as to what or where that center is. Some, however, be- 
lieve that they have found the direction of it to be the 
Pleiads, and particularly Alcyone, the central one of the 
Pleiadic stars. To the distinguished German astronomer, 
Prof. J. H. Meader, belongs the honor of having made 
this discovery. Alcyone, then, as far as science has been 
able to perceive, would seem to be the midnight throne 
in which the whole system of gravitation has its central 
seat, and from which the Almighty governs his universe. 
And here is the wonderful corresponding fact, that at 
the date of the Great Pyramid’s building, at midnight of 
the autumnal equinox, and hence the true beginning of 
the year as still preserved in the traditions of many na- 
tions, the Pleiades were distributed over the meridian of 
this Pyramid, with Alcyone precisely on the line. Here, 
then, is a pointing of the highest and sublimest character 
that mere human science has never been able so much as 
to hint, and which would seem to breathe an unsuspected 
and mighty meaning into that speech of God to Job, when 
he demanded: ‘Canst thou bind the sweet influences of 
Pleiades ?” 

“In short, the claim is made that the construction of 
the Great Pyramid bears testimony as to the plan of re- 
demption in its outlines. Also the plan of the ages. It 
is God’s witness in stone of His will towards men, and 
His plan of dealing with them.” 


218 WHAT IS MAN? 


Whether the foregoing conjectures and opinions are 
well founded and approximately correct or not, it must 
be acknowledged that it is the most wonderful structure 
in the world. For that reason we have quoted on the 
subject at such length, and now the reader can take his 
choice in making up his mind; he may either believe that 
the Great Pyramid was designed and builded by the 
Egyptians alone, and which, if such be the case, speaks 
volumes for the intelligence and civilization of this an- 
cient people; or he may believe that the architecture and 
building were executed by an inspired representative of 
God. If it has no prophetic significance, the mystery of 
its purpose and construction grow deeper as the ages 
pass. 

Space will not warrant us in a more extended descrip- 
tion of this wonderful structure, only to say there are 
several apartments in it which have been named by com- 
mon consent, perhaps, as The Entrance Passage, First 
Ascending Passage, Elegant Hallway, Grand Gallery, 
Antechamber, Queen’s Chamber, King’s Chamber, and a 
Subterranean Chamber, hewn out of the solid rock. The 
structure is built of sandstone except in the King’s Cham- 
ber and the Antechamber, where the floors and ceilings 
are of granite, all of which apartments are unique in 
architecture. Neither will I stop to mention the measure- 
ments which have been made, and by which it is claimed 
that the year of its construction is proven; and also that 
the time of “the end” is pointed out. Enough has been 
said to show its enigmatic character, and to demonstrate 
the fact that the Great Pyramid is indeed the most won- 
derful structure ever erected on this earth. 


EGYPTIAN LITERATURE 


It is entirely safe to say of Man’s beginnings in Egypt, 
we know nothing whatever. Geographical research seems 
to indicate, possibly, that the River Nile did not always 
occupy its present bed; there may have been a time, then, 
when Egypt was a barren, desert country, when the peo- 
ple known to us as Egyptians had their abode farther 
south in the African continent. This ancient people, even- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 219 


tually, appeared in the narrow and fertile valley, to which 
they gave its present name, and began the wondertful 
career which modern investigation has but partially 
traced out. At this date—say, 4,500 to 5,000 years ago— 
we find them already far advanced in civilization, making 
use of a written language, and possessed of certain knowl- 
edge, scientific and mechanical, to which we are as yet 
strangers. 

But there must have been a time, so said, either before 
this ancient people emigrated to the valley of the Nile, 
or after they reached their new home, when they had 
to learn to talk; had to learn to make use of articulate 
speech, which is called language. 

No one remembers when he began to talk, and, there- 
fore, until we begin to reflect upon the subject, lan- 
guage seems always to have existed or to have come by 
nature to our lips. At the present time, words do spring 
spontaneously to our lips; and we can scarcely imagine a 
state of human existence in which there were no words 
known to Man to be spoken. 

There is a diversity of opinion existing as to primitive 
Man and his condition, but they may all be classified 
under one of two heads. That is to say, there are two, 
theories extant as to primitive Man. The one holds that 
Man was created by God, and endowed with all the 
native intelligence that he now has, only lacking the re- 
finement that education and experience give to intelli- 
gence; that language came automatically to his lips, pos- 
sibly by intuition, and he could use it without being edu- 
cated to do so; and that, at that time, he was a perfectly 
pure being; but that he was given, by endowment, a 
dual character or nature, viz., a moral character and a 
carnal character, with the power of choice, and a free 
will to act on that choice, and, as a result of that dual 
nature, Man disobeyed by choice; wilfully, if you please, 
and so did not use his moral intelligence in accordance 
with God’s wishes or design, and, therefore, entailed the 
wages of sin on his posterity; 1.e., he taught the first les- 
son in disobedience. For this reason he was sent adrift 
on the face of the earth, and, in his wanderings, evolution 
by degeneration brought him, in many instances, to a 


220 WHAT IS MAN? 


state of barbarism and savagery, by reason of the non- 
exercise of his moral character ; and now he has to regain 
his inheritance by the process of redemption before he 
can fulfil his intended destiny. 

The other theory holds that Man, when he was first 
launched upon the scene of this world’s activities, was 
just a little step above the brutes around him, he having 
emerged from the brute by evolution. That his intelli- 
gence was that of the brutes around him, and his nature 
was that of brutish savagery. That, at first, all communi- 
cation with his fellows—if, indeed, he had any—was by 
signs and motions, as he had no language; but that all 
language came by growth, starting from the merest mono- 
syllabic grunt, and growing little by little, step by step, 
to his present verbose vocabulary. That Man has stead- 
ily grown in mental acumen because he learned to talk 
and use articulate language, from that time to the pres- 
ent; that all that Man knows mentally and morally he 
has learned by his own exertions from experience; little 
by little, step by step, he has emerged from total ig- 
norance and barbaric savagery, where his coming found 
him, to the present enviable estate. 

This last theory makes it possible—yes, probable— 
that untold ages may have passed before Man could hold 
converse with his fellow Man, only through signs and 
motions. To me this is incredible. To us of to-day it 
seems just as natural for a normal human being to talk 
as it is for a calf to chew its cud; and it is just as reason- 
able to me that Man should talk intuitively, as that a calf 
should chew its cud, by nature. Words spring spon- 
taneously to our lips, and it is just as natural for the 
child to learn to produce audible, articulate sounds, as 
it is to hear and recognize articulate sounds. Both are 
native functions, implanted in the make-up of the being, 
and could not have been acquired by synthesis, though 
the native function is capable of much improvement by 
practice and learning. Language may have been very 
imperfect at first, but it was articulate language to them, 
and so conveyed their meaning, and was, by the auditors, 
perfectly understood; if it had not been so, there could 
not have been any improvement. Very probably their 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 221 


language was a flexible affair, like the primitive Chinese 
language, where a word might be a noun, a verb, or an 
adjective, either or all in the same sentence. But the 
fact remains that spoken words constitute articulate lan- 
guage, no difference how grammarless it may be. How- 
ever, the scientific theory of the origin of language is in- 
teresting, and may be the process by which language has 
been perfected. 


SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE 


“Unless we suppose language to have been given to 
Man as a direct divine revelation, there must have been a 
period in the dawn of human history as that no words 
were known to be spoken. Man was practically dumb. He 
could feel, he could think, but speech was unknown to 
him. The conception of communicating his emotions and 
perceptions of sounds—still less of classifying and organ- 
izing such sounds—had never presented itself to him. 

“The root and origin of human speech is emotion. The 
distinction between emotion and thought was artificial 
and comparatively recent. They were originally one; 
and if we penetrate beneath the surface, we shall find 
that they are so still. Thought, in its basis, is contempla- 
tion of emotional impressions. Though such contempla- 
tion may, in the abstract, be considered apart from the 
impression, in reality it is never so separated. The two 
make one, as do substance and form. We may abstractly 
consider the form of a thing apart from the thing itself; 
but if we take away from the thing its constitutive sub- 
stance, obviously there will be nothing left. We can only 
say that form is a universal property of substance; and 
in the same way we may say that thought is an in- 
alienable property of emotion. Without emotion the 
mind is and must remain inoperative—a blank. Emotion 
is prior or radical; thought is posterior or derivative.” 
(How does that comport with the evolutionary theory, 
or Darwin’s idea that the brain was developed because 
Man learned to tall?) 

“When we say that Man was originally dumb, we mean 
only that he was dumb in the sense that animals are sq. 


222 WHAT IS MAN? 


He could always make sounds. And it was emotion that 
prompted him to do this. Love, hate, anger, fear, hope, 
disappointment, hunger, satisfaction—it is in such emo- 
tions as these that we find the primal elements of what 
was destined to be human speech. The sounds elicited 
by emotions were vowel sounds; we find them in our 
alphabet to-day, and they still express the entire gamut of 
emotion. They are made by unobstructed breath ex- 
pelled through the throat, the mouth being open; the 
shape of the aperture formed by the lips determines the 
sound of the vowel. Such was the first human speech; 
a mere reverberation of the impact upon the human 
senses of the phenomena of the external world. ‘There 
was no attempt at specialization or definition further 
than inhered in the indefinite modulations of the sounds 
themselves. 

“The appearance of the consonants indicate the 
second state of speech. Consonants are modes of ob- 
structing the free vowel sounds. Emotions had become 
more complex; it became necessary to convey the idea 
of transaction from one emotion to another, and the con- 
sonant was the natural division-point or partition between 
the two. They were formed by various combinations or 
oppositions of the teeth, tongue, lips, palate and glottis. 
They are in themselves merely auxiliary—the frame- 
work upon which the forms of speech are displayed; they 
have been called the skeleton of speech. Like the bones 
of the human body, they are comparatively devoid of 
life. In some degenerate or savage languages, conso- 
nants are more prominent than vowels, indicating a low 
and unintelligent state of existence. 

“With the establishment of the consonants, the creation 
of words became possible. The earliest words were prob- 
ably the names of objects—nouns. Upon seeing any 
given object for the second time, the observer would re- 
peat the sound or word which its first appearance had 
drawn for him; this became in time the name of that 
object. Or if he wished to convey to another the emotion 
which a certain thing or event had aroused in him, he 
would repeat the sound which he had then uttered. Pro- 
nouns, which point out objects without naming them, 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 223 


would also be early used. Action would first be expressed 
by illustrative gestures; the verb, as we have it, is the 
outcome of a comparatively complicated mental process, 
but the noun is obviously its parent. Adjectives, ad- 
verbs, and other parts of speech were gradually and in- 
sensibly developed. Inflections came later still, and are 
only found in a certain family of languages. Of the 
three classes into which all languages are derived, two, 
the monosyllabic and the agglutinated, are devoid of in- 
flections. Examples of the first are the Chinese and the 
American Indian; of the second, the Tartar, Finnish, 
Caucasian. The third, or inflected class of languages, in- 
cludes the Semitic and Indo-European families; and the 
races which spoke them are the fathers of human progress 
and civilization. This is a significant fact. The differ- 
ence between the inflected and the other languages is 
similar to that between matter organized and inorganic, 
or between life and death. Inflected language, and there- 
fore the people who spoke it, alone possess the principle 
of active life, growth and aspiration. The Indo-European 
nations were travelers, colonists, conquerors, pioneers; 
their mode of existence was restless and ambitious. The 
Semitic peoples were less physically active, but they were 
conquerors in the realm of mind; they were the masters 
of philosophy and metaphor. The languages of these 
two great families are the mirror of their character and 
temperament. They are spiritual, plastic, sensitive. Their 
words are histories; they have souls, they grow and 
change. The uninflected languages are not older than 
the inflected, as might be supposed—they are of a distinct 
genus. The impulse which brought them to their present 
estate died and left them there. What they are now 
they were before history began. The soul is out of them, 
even as the instinct of progress was extinguished in 
those who spoke them. 

“Language is not literature, though it includes it. Liter- 
ature in its prime definition is written language. When 
language first began to be written we do not know. The 
invention of letters must have been a slow and abstruse 
process. In the beginning, the Man would make a pic- 
ture of some object which had impressed him—an out- 


224 WHAT IS MAN? 


line sketch of a wild animal, perhaps. This would serve 
in lieu of its name to recall it to himself or another. Less 
concrete ideas, connected by tradition, however, with 
some concrete thing, would next be portrayed. Gradually 
the outline would be simplified until it was reduced to 
a conventional sign. ‘These signs were now used to indi- 
cate simple sounds, and thus the alphabet as we know it 
came into existence. How many ages elapsed from the 
first pictorial representations to the evolution of the early 
alphabets can only be conjectured. In some languages, 
such as the Aztec, writing is still a series of pictures. In 
Chinese, it is still more. Egyptian hieroglyphics are pic- 
tures more or less conventionalized. The Hittite and the 
cuneiform are other surviving examples of such writing. 
The first alphabet which properly merited the name was 
the Phoenician; allied to it are the early Hebrew and the 
Greek. From these, in various ways, were derived the 
alphabets of Asia and Europe, during historical periods, 
down to the present. 

“For a long time the use of written language must 
have been restricted to important records, owing to the 
difficulty of inscribing words upon stone or metal mate- 
rials. For the same reason, the task of making such 
records would be given over to that class in a community 
which possessed the most leisure for sedentary occupation ; 
that is, to the priestly class. Possibly because this class 
was concerned with religious and mystical pursuits. So 
writing came to have a sacred character ascribed to it. 
The deeds of great rulers, handed down by oral tradition, 
would acquire a legendary character, and would easily 
be magnified by scribes into the achievements of heroes, 
demigods, or Deity itself. The great writings of an- 
tiquity, notably our own Bible, came to us in the guise 
of divine revelations. They set forth the dealings of the 
Higher Power with men, and the precepts which He in- 
culcates. It seems probable that enlightened criticism 
may hereafter concede a higher authenticity to these 
scriptures than it has latterly done. All language is meta- 
phorical—ideas conveyed by symbols. The Vedic poems 
of India, the Persian Avesta, the Hebrew scriptures, and 
even the epics of Homer, are found to have an esoteric 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 225 


sense beneath the story of the letter. This inner or 
spiritual meaning refers to the conflicts of Man with the 
evil to which he is prone, to the liberation of the spiritual 
from the bonds of the inferior nature, and to its final 
union with God. We shall only remark, in support of the 
divine inspiration of these ancient books, that in all the 
ages that have elapsed since their production, mankind 
has conceived nothing equal to them in sublimity, pro- 
fundity and truth. All the worthiest in literature since 
their epoch is but repetition more or less feeble, comment 
more or less competent, of and upon the principles which 
they set forth. They are the most modern as well as the 
most ancient books of the world. 

“As time went on, and the labor of writing became light- 
ened by various devices, persons outside of the priestly 
class acquired proficiency in the art, and the character 
of the records became correspondingly secular and 
trifling. It would seem as if the sources of Man’s spirit- 
ual enlightenment were progressively closed. He no 
longer pretended to converse with angels. He was con- 
tent to become the chronicler of merely natural events, 
the singer of love songs, the purveyor of imaginative 
romance. In the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh are found 
multitudes of bricks, inscribed in the cuneiform char- 
acters, with writings of the most transient importance, 
such as the records of sales, enumeration of properties, 
and memoranda of persons, places and times. F ollowing 
the great classic of Chinese literature, we find works on 
almost all subjects, with the exception of mathematics. 
In Egypt, during the period of Rameses, there was a 
great production of novels and works of entertainment. 
The literature of ancient Greece is abundant in quantity, 
faultless in form, and unsurpassed in artistic quality and 
eloquence. They brought almost to perfection the vari- 
ous departments of historical, poetical, oratorical and 
metaphysical literature. The Romans followed but scarce- 
ly rivaled them. With the fall of Rome, modern literature 
may be said to begin. 

“Although literature is written language, we are not 
to infer that Man postponed the expression of the senti- 
ments and aspirations which filled him until he could carve 


226 WHAT IS MAN? 


them on stone or inscribe them on papyrus or parch- 
ment. Literature, in the early ages, was chanted or sung; 
the medium of record and transmission was the tablet 
of the human memory. The epics of Homer were recited 
by minstrels long before they were committed to writing. 
Memory in those times was perfected to a degree now 
hardly credible. The great Vedic hymns were similarly 
chanted. Writing as a means of preserving such compo- 
sition was of comparatively late employment. But when 
the era of sublime inspiration passed, and the process of 
pen-and-ink writing upon skins or papyrus, or with the 
stylus upon wax sheets, was introduced, scrolls and books 
took the place of memorizing. The collection of these 
documents constituted the first libraries. Many of these 
early libraries were of large extent. Their contents have 
been either wholly or in part destroyed. All we know of 
many important books and works is the chance mention 
of them in books of which late copies have survived. 
“But there was until lately another obstacle in the way 
of our mastering ancient literature. We did not under- 
stand the language in which it was written. The peoples 
who had spoken them had disappeared; they had been 
conquered by others and absorbed, or had died out from 
various causes. Their languages had been supplanted by 
those of their conquerors, and the keys to them had been 
lost and forgotten. But sometimes by accident, or again 
by patient ingenuity, these keys were recovered. It was 
found, for example, that Sanskrit, the language of India, 
was allied to Greek and other European tongues, and 
thus, by diligent comparison and sagacious interpretation, 
its books were read. The Babylonish astronomical rec- 
ords were translated into Greek by Berosus, 300 years 
B.C. Hebrew proved to be the open-sesame to another 
group of languages, such as the Syriac; and Persian was 
found to own relationship to both Chaldaic and Sanskrit. 
The insoluble enigma was the Egyptian hieroglyphics, 
and they might have remained so to this day had not an 
inscription on stone been found in 1799 which contained 
a passage in hieroglyphics followed by its translation in 
Greek. This Rosetta Stone, as it is called, after the town 
on the Nile near which it was dug up, opened the door, 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 227 


giving access to the hitherto hidden history of nearly 
thirty centuries. During the hundred years which have 
elapsed since then, the literature of Egypt has absorbed 
the attention of many scholars.” 

Interesting as is the above scientific analysis of the 
origin of language, it is the production of a scholar of 
these later times and may possibly be accepted as ap- 
proximating a scientific explanation of the origin of lan- 
guage; but we venture that language, as first spoken by 
humanity, had no such scientific origin; else we must 
grant early mankind to have been as scientifically learned 
as this learned gentleman; the human voice made itself 
a medium of communication by sounds, at least, whether 
euphonious and grammatical or not, from the very begin- 
ning. 

To show the literary achievements of this early peo- 
ple, sketches from their most ancient manuscripts have 
been selected, among which is “The Oldest Book in the 
World,” estimated by different Egyptologists to have been 
written 3,065, 3,585, 3,580 and 4,000 years B.C. It was 
written by Ptah-Hotep. The papyrus roll on which it 
was originally written is preserved in the Bibliotheque 
Nationale at Paris. This papyrus roll was discovered 
by M. Prisse at Thebes, Egypt. Let us quote a trans- 
lation from the “Literature of All Nations”: 


PRECEPTS OF PTAH-HOTEP 


The words of the Lord Prefect Ptah-Hotep, who lived in 
the reign of Assa, King of Northern and Southern Egypt, who 
. liveth forever. 

Thus saith the Lord Ptah-Hotep: O Lord Osiris, whose 
feet are upon the crocodiles. A man waxeth old, his strength 
decayeth, he getteth in years, his youth fadeth away: Day by 
day the heart of an old man fainteth and is troubled: His eyes 
see not, his ears hear not, his power is lessened and abated: 
Behold, his mouth speaketh not as of yore; his mind is feeble, 
and remembereth not the deeds of yesterday: Yea, his body 
is afflicted, good is to him as evil, his tongue savoreth no 
longer. Alas, the old age of a man is full of misery, his nos- 
trils drink not the breath of heaven, his lungs wax feeble, he 
delighteth neither to stand nor to be seated. Who shall give 
unto my tongue authority to utter unto the young men the 
councils from the old? or who vouchsafeth unto me to declare 


228 WHAT IS MAN? 


the councils received from on high? O Lord Osiris, let thy 
favor be poured out upon thy servant, and suffer these evils 
to be removed from those who are unenlightened. 

Then answered the Lord Osiris and said: Instruct them in 
the councils from of old; for verily, wisdom from of old maketh 
the weak strong; knowledge giveth freedom to him that hear- 
eth; wisdom cries aloud, and the ear is not satisfied with 
hearing. 

Here beginneth the book of the wise sayings of the Lord 
Prefect Ptah-Hotep, the first-born, the son of the King, the 
well-beloved of the Lord. That the ignorant and the foolish 
may be instructed in the understanding of wisdom. Whoso 
giveth ear, to him shall these words be as riches; to him who 
heedeth them not, to the same shall come emptiness forever. 
Thus speaketh he, giving counsel unto his son. Be not thou 
puffed up with thy learning; honor the wise, neither withhold 
thou from the simple. The gates are closed to none; whoso 
entereth thereat, though he seeketh perfection, yet shall he not 
find it. But the words of wisdom are hid, even as the emerald 
is hid in the earth, and adamant in the rock, which the slave 
diggeth up. 

Yield unto him whose strength is more than thine, who 
falleth upon thee in anger: be not thou inflated, neither lay 
thy hand upon him; so shalt thou escape calamity. He is 
froward, it shall not profit thee to contend against him; be con- 
tained, and when he rageth against thee, oppose him not, so 
in the end shalt thou prevail over him. 

If one rail out against thee, and flout thee, answer him not 
again, but be as one who cannot be moved; even so shalt thou 
overcome him. For the bystanders shall declare that he who, 
being provoked, holdeth his tongue, is greater than he who 
provoketh; and thou shalt be honored of those who have un- 
derstanding. If thou do evil, being thereto commanded by one 
having authority over thee, the gods shall not condemn thee. 
Know thy master, and the slave: be not froward: obey and 
reverence him to whom is given dominion over thee: None 
may know adversity, when it cometh, nor prosperity, when it 
shall relieve him, for the will of fate is hid from all. But he 
that abuseth his servant shall be confounded, and God who 
gave him authority shall suddenly take away; and great shall 
be the overthrow. Be diligent, and do more than thy master 
commandeth thee; for the slothful servant shall be discom- 
fited, and he that is idle shall be chidden. See thou neglect 
not thy household; if thou find opportunity to increase thy 
wealth, improve it; business begetteth business, but poverty is 
the lot of the slothful. 

The wise traineth his child to walk devoutly and to serve 
the Lord; he maketh him obey his law, and do that which is 
bidden; so shall the love of the father be justified. The son 
of man is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; let not thy 
heart be cold towards him. But if he be froward and trans- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 229 


gress thy law, and, being tempted of evil, turn himself from 
thy instruction, then do thou smite the mouth that smote thee. 
Delay not to bring the erring to obedience, and to chastise the 
rebellious, so shall he not stray from the path of righteousness, 
nor stumble among pitfalls. Hide not thy path, let not thy 
way be hidden; though thou stand in the council of thy master, 
declare the truth that is in thee. 

Be not as those who go backward, who eat the words of 
their own mouth, lest peradventure they offend: Be not like 
unto them; feigners, answering, He that perceiveth the error 
of things, the same is wise: when the wise man uplifteth his 
voice against error, deny him not, but keep silence; for surely 
none but the wise have understanding. 

If thou be wise, guard thy house; honor thy wife, and love 
her exceedingly: feed her belly and clothe her back, for this is 
the duty of a husband. Give her abundance of ointment, fail 
not each day to caress her, let the desire of her heart be ful- 
filled: for verily he that is kind to his wife and honoreth her, 
the same honoreth himself. Withhold thy hand from violence, 
and thy heart from cruelty, softly entreat her and win her to 
thy way; consider her desires, and deny not the wish of her 
heart. Thus shalt thou keep her heart from wandering; but 
if thou harden thyself against her, she will turn fror thee. 
Speak to her, yield her thy love, she will have respect unto 
thee; open thy arms, she will come unto thee. 

Blessed is the son who gives ear to the instruction of his 
father, for he shall escape error. Train thy son to obedience, 
his wisdom shall be pleasing unto the great. Let his mouth 
have respect to thy sayings; by obedience shall his wisdom be 
established. Day by day shall his walk be perfect; but error 
shall be the destruction of fools. The ignorant and froward 
shall be overthrown, but knowledge shall uplift the wise. 

He that lacketh prudence and inclineth not his ear to in- 
struction, the same worketh no good. He thinketh to discover 
knowledge in ignorance, and gain in that which profiteth noth- 
ing; he runneth to himself, and wandereth into error, choosing 
those things which are rejected of the prudent; so subsisteth 
he on that which perisheth, and filleth his belly with words of 
evil. Yea, he is brought to shame, seeking to be nourished 
with whatsoever the wise hold in abomination, shunning prof- 
itable things, led astray by much foolishness, 

Take thought in thy heart, but let thy mouth be sparing of 
words; so shalt thou have speech with the great and the wise; 
cleave to the way of thy master, so that when he declareth, 
This is my son, the bystanders shall say, Blessed be she who 
bore so good a child. Apply thy soul diligently unto that 
which thou speakest, yea, speak perfect things, or speak not 
at all; so shall the great give ear to thee, and cry, Lo, twice 
wise are the utterances of his lips! Do thy master’s bidding, 
and be diligent to observe the precepts of thy father; inscribe 


230 WHAT IS MAN? 


his law in thy heart, and obey his will even beyond that which 
he requireth of thee; so shalt thou be pleasing unto him. 

Verily, a good son is given of the Lord, who doeth more 
than is required of him, and laboreth to please the heart of 
his master, and seeketh strength in righteousness. So shall 
thy body have health, and thy king shall be content with thee 
in all things. Thy days shall be many under the sun, and 
increase of years with strength shall be thine. Wisdom up- 
lifteth me to a high place, and multiplied my years, to live 
long in the earth, even five-score and ten years. This I have 
found: That the best favor of a king is given to him who labor- 
eth all his days, and findeth honor with all men. 


Now, if Man, “when he first became Man, was just 
a little step above the brutes around him,’’ he must have 
made very rapid strides in his mental and moral im- 
provement. Who can truthfully say that the sentiments 
expressed in the foregoing are not those of the highest 
type of civilization, even from the standpoint of Chris- 
tian ethics? 

The sentiments expressed are indicative of a high moral 
character in the author, with a complete understanding 
of righteous ways. They also indicate as intelligent an 
idea of a Supreme Being as we have to-day, notwith- 
standing he calls upon Osiris as his God. That was the 
name by which he knew God. 

It is worthy of notice that in the make-up of the com- 
position there is not a hint of idol-worship or the wor- 
ship of multiple gods, such as afterward prevailed. Evi- 
dently Ptah-Hotep wrote before the days of luxurious 
revelry in the courts of the king, and the consequent de- 
generation and decay, amounting to the abandonment of 
the ethical character, had begun to debauch even the 
nobility of Egypt. I say even the nobility, because, in 
times past, there is where debauchery first showed itself 
in a nation under the old régime. 

It is the belief of the writer that if such sentiments 
were promulgated in a state paper by a potentate in any 
Christian country in these times, he would be looked upon 
by the great mass of humanity as an old fogy, and the 
expressions those of a fossil out of date, who had out- 
lived his usefulness; because of the tendency of these 
times. And yet, for a certainty, no Man can deny the 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 231 


soundness of the advice given; to the lofty truths ex- 
pressed in this, the most ancient memorandum of the 
sayings of Man. 

This style of composition must have been the classic 
primitive style of writing, and must have prevailed for 
ages at least, as we find the Proverbs of Solomon writ- 
ten in the same style and measure. 


THE BOOK OF THE DEAD 


The ancient Egyptians were a people full of the 
vigor of life; and this may be one reason of the extraor- 
dinary care they gave to the preservation of the body 
after death. The idea of the final dissolution, even of 
the body, was unwelcome to them; and they established 
elaborate and costly processes and ceremonies, with the 
purpose of affording help and guidance to the soul on its 
journey through the spiritual world, and meanwhile of 
preserving the body as nearly as possible intact, in order 
that it might be ready to receive back its informing 
spirit when the time of the resurrection should come. 


THE VOYAGE OF THE SOUL 


In the fifteenth chapter of the Book of the Dead we 
find an account of the passage of the soul in a boat across 
the firmament, to the abode of the blessed. The soul is 
called Osiris by the Egyptians, in connection with the 
proper name of the individual (N), to indicate that the 
latter already partakes of the divine nature. Here is the 
Osiris (N): 


Come forth into Heaven, sail across the firmament and enter 
into brotherhood with the stars, let salutation be made to thee 
in the bark, let invocation be made to thee in the morning 
bark. Contemplate Ra within the Ark, and do thou propitiate 
his orb daily. See the fish in its birth from the emerald stream, 
and see the tortoise and its rotations. Let the offender (the 
dragon) fall prostrate, when he meditates destruction for me, 
by blows on his backbone. 

Ra springs forth with a fair wind; the evening bark speeds 
on and reaches the Haven. The crew of Ra are in exultation 


232 WHAT IS MAN? 


when they look upon him; the Mistress of life, her heart is 
delighteth at the overthrow of the adversary of her lord. 

See thou Horus at the lookout at the bow, and at his sides 
Thoth and Maat. All the gods are in exultation when they 
behold Ra coming in peace to give new life to the hearts of 
the Chu, and here is the Osiris N along with them. 


(Litany.) 

Adored be Ra, as he setteth in the land of life. 

Hail to thee, who hast come as Tmu, and hast been the cre- 
ator of the cycle of the gods. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who hast come as the soul of souls, revered 
in Amenta. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who art above the gods, and who lightest up 
Tuat with thy glories, 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who comest in splendor, and goest around in 
thine orb. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who art mightier than the gods, who art 
crowned in Heaven and King in Tuat. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 
Hail to thee, who openest the Tuat and disposest of all its 

oors. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, supreme among the gods, and weigher of woods 
in the nether world. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who art in thy Nest, and stirrest the Tuat with 
thy glory. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, the great, the mighty, whose enemies are laid 
prostrate at their blocks. 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Hail to thee, who slaughterest the Sebau and annihilatest 
Apepi (the dragon), 

Give thou delicious breezes of the north wind to the Osiris N. 

Horus openeth: the Great, the Mighty, who divideth the 
earths, the Great One resteth in the Mountain of the west, and 
brighteneth up the Tuat with his glories and the Souls in their 
hidden abode, by shining into their sepulchres. 

By hurling harm against the foe thou hast utterly destroyed 
all the adversaries of the Osiris N. 


THE SOUL’S DECLARATION OF INNOCENCE 


This declaration was to be made by the soul in the 
judgment hall of Osiris in the presence of the council of 
forty-two gods. The, heart being weighed against the 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 233 


symbol of truth and found correct was then restored to 
the deceased, who entered upon the life of the blessed. 


O ye Lords of truth! I have brought you truth. 

I have not privily done evil against mankind. 

I have not afflicted the miserable. 

I have not told falsehoods. 

I have no acquaintances with sin. 

A Have not made the laboring man do more than his daily 
task. 

I have not been idle. 

I have not been intoxicated. 

I have not been immoral. 

I have not calumniated a slave to his master. 

I have not caused hunger. 

I have not made to weep. 

I have not murdered. 

I have not defrauded. 

I have not eaten the sacred bread of the temples. 

I have not cheated in the weight of the balance. 

I have not withheld milk from the mouths of sucklings. 

I have not slandered any one. 

I have not netted the sacred birds. 

I have not caught the fish which typify them. 

I have not stopped the running water. 

I have not robbed the gods of their offered haunches. 

I have not stopped a god from his manifestation. 

I have made to the gods the offerings that were their due. 

I have given food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and 
clothes to the naked. 

Iam pure! I am pure! 


These are only a few of the many selections that might 
have been made from the literature of ancient Egypt, all 
of them dating more than 2,000 years B.C. We have 
dwelt at this length to fully attest the wonderful civiliza- 
tion and advancement this most ancient people had at- 
tained 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. The enumeration and 
description of their accomplishments, trades and cus- 
toms reads like a description of a flourishing city or com- 
munity in our own times here in the United States. In- 
deed, a description of many of our most advanced cities 
would not include as many of the useful arts as did they 
understand and practice more than 4,000 years ago. 
Though in some respects they were not as far advanced, 
perhaps, as we are to-day, as we see no mention of steam 
and trolley cars, electric lights, automobiles, pianos, 


234 WHAT IS MAN? 


phonographs, and a world of unique and technical ma- 
chinery of to-day ; yet this wonderful people practiced all 
the useful arts, and we must grant that they were a won- 
derfully advanced people for their time, the oldest civiliza- 
tion in the world. 

Compare, for instance, this pen-picture of advanced and 
cultured civilization in ancient Egypt, their high moral at- 
tainments, their wonderful abilities,in architecture and 
building, the diversity and perfection of mechanic arts, 
with the barbarism of the Engles and Saxons, our own 
progenitors, at the time when Hengist and Horsa led 
their band of marauders, landing at Ebbsfleet, on the 
isle of Thanet, just off the shores of Britain, in 449 A.D., 
or even with the Anglo-Saxons, who became the English 
people, for the succeeding five hundred years. It is the 
comparison of a brilliant, advanced civilization with a 
barbarism, if not indeed a nation of savages. 

In the more than 3,000 years that had elapsed since 
Ptah-Hotep wrote, to the landing of our pirate forefathers 
on the shores of Britain, the ethical character of the 
miass of humanity then on this earth had faded to a mere 
shadow of what it had been. They had fallen from their 
first estate of purity and moral acuity, civil and mechan- 
ical greatness, to a state of savagery. In the intervening 
time the race had become widely distributed over the 
earth, and there had sprung up a few foci, such as Pales- 
tine, Greece, Rome, Babylon, Arabia, and perhaps others, 
widely separated, that had kept the light of civilization 
and learning burning. In a few instances their light 
shone with great brilliancy; but in each instance it was 
destined to die down to a mere flicker, if not to be en- 
tirely extinguished. A gradual but sure decline, almost 
to the point of obliteration, of the ethical character, learn- 
ing, civilization and progress, had been world-wide, until 
the first century A.D., since which time there has been a 
gradual lifting of the darkness, and a general improve- 
ment of mankind. But since the beginning of the uplift, 
there have been times of fluctuation, when the lights of 
civilization and learning were all but extinguished, cul- 
minating in the great eclipse of the “Dark Ages,” but 
since which time the lights have burned more brightly 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 235 


than before. The great question is—What was the cause 
of the uplift? 

We find the cause of the decline to be the abandonment 
of ethical culture in Man; leaving the subject entirely 
under the influence of his carnal and animal nature. Like- 
wise, we find the cause of the improvement to be a re- 
awakening of the moral nature, and the supplanting of 
the carnal character by an ethical character. We grant 
it has been a slow advancement, because the reawakening 
has been only fractional. The proof of this proposition is 
the fact that those peoples who have cultivated the moral 
nature or character most have made the most rapid prog- 
ress and advances and have reached a higher plane of 
civilization. 

We recognize the fact that this is indeed a very broad 
subject, and is capable of great elaboration. We are 
aware that our position is the opposite of that taken by 
most historians, especially is it the opposite of the Dar- 
winian theory. The proof of our theory is in the people 
themselves of those times, and not in our belief. Want 
of space forbids a full discussion of these points. Henry 
Van Dyke’s “Essays in Application” are well worth 
studying in this connection. We believe humanity has 
never been interpreted aright save in one book. 

That such a people should utterly perish from the 
earth is just as wonderful as their advancement in their 
time. Why should such a people perish from the earth? 
What is the secret of their failure? This is just one, 
the first, advanced civilization of many that might be 
named which had its beginning, development, decadence 
and extinction—the four stages which are the inheritance 
of all life. 

This is simply the story of scores of peoples who have 
followed along the same paths and come to the same end- 
ing; and it is a portending of what is to follow on the 
heels of the present. What we are pleased to call the 
grand civilizations of the twentieth century A.D., are all 
to perish, sooner or later, from the earth, to be followed 
or perhaps supplanted by others. And whether they will 
be more advanced than those now holding sway, or 
whether history will repeat itself, and a time will come 


236 WHAT IS MAN? 


like unto the “Dark Ages,” will depend upon whether or 
not the coming generations develop the individuality of 
the highest manhood and womanhood. If the coming 
generations develop fully the idea that the nation is the 
ideal, and the individual is only a cipher, they will go 
down to oblivion, the same as others have done, as the 
chain is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. 
A nation is only great as the individuality of each indi- 
vidual, each integer that goes to make up the sum total 
of the nation, is noble and great and good. Perpetuity 
of a people cannot rest with a national government, what- 
ever form of government it is, be it a theocracy, a mon- 
archy, a republic or a democracy ; but it is contingent upon 
the personality of the people that go to make up the na- 
tion. This may be more emphatically true in a republic 
than ina monarchy. In the latter the responsibility rests 
with the monarch as much or more than with the people 
over whom he reigns. If there really is such a thing as 
a “government of the people, for the people, and by the 
people,” then of course the people are responsible for 
the quality and course of the government; but I question 
very much whether there ever was or ever will be such a 
form of government, simply because of the vulnerability of 
the character of unregenerate humanity. Nowadays we 
hear of the terrible corruption of a national government; 
and a great cry is going up for government reform and 
purity. But the corruption in a national government only 
displays on a larger scale the corruption of the individual 
membership who have the reins of government in their 
hands. If the individuality of a nation is honest, pure- 
minded, true-hearted and noble in character, the govern- 
ment will reflect those qualities or elements in its admin- 
istration; and there can be no trouble at all about the 
ethics of the national government. 

Much is said to-day about the “community of interest,” 
the “brotherhood of Man,” and the “solidarity of the 
people,” as elements in government, but the only saving 
and advancing element comes from free and noble indi- 
vidual manhood, acting each for himself. The character 
of the individuality is the only test of greatness, gran- 
deur and sublimity, or the smallness and insignificance 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 237 


of a people. Under the moral law the responsibility rests 
with the individual; why should it not be so under the 
civic law? Under the moral law every one is a sovereign 
in himself, or ought to be; why should it not be the same 
under the civic law? But the history of the world shows 
that Man has ever been running after a leader, and, like 
a flock of sheep, they go wherever the leader lures them. 
That seems to be one of the weaknesses of humanity. 
They do not assert their individuality, and to that ex- 
tent they have not attained to the highest plane of civili- 
lization. To-day it is largely the custom to call any Man 
that asserts his individuality a “crank.” All innovations 
must come from a leader—at least have his endorsement. 
This only emphasizes the great responsibility resting with 
a leader. 

It has been held by eminent historians and philosophers 
that a people could not raise themselves from barbarism 
to a civilized state without the aid and influence of some 
outside party or people. How then did the first or 
primary civilizations come about, if Man, when he first 
became Man, was a barbarian or even worse, but just a 
little step above the brutes around him? None of the 
primary civilizations, then, could have been the outgrowth 
from a barbarism preceding it; and if there had not been 
the primary civilizations, there would never have been 
any civilizations at all. That in itself would prove that 
primitive Man was not a barbarian. Was primitive Man 
in Egypt a barbarian? Certainly not, else he could not 
have become civilized; but, on the contrary, he was pos- 
sessed of traits of character which, under competent, 
noble leadership, developed the high type of manhood— 
civilized manhood—which we see portrayed in the fore- 
going sketches of their very earliest history. Now, other 
peoples, who emigrated from the original birthplace or 
home of the race, had their awakening along different 
lines, and, as a consequence, they developed into bar- 
barians and savages—perhaps all owing to their leader- 
ship and environment. 

A notable case in history seems to demonstrate that 
a people may rise from the savage to a high state of 
civilization, under the influence and guidance of a leader- 


238 WHAT IS MAN? 


ship in the person of a king or emperor of high moral 
character, and without the aid of any outside influence, 
so far as history relates; it is probably an exception to 
the rule. Under the circumstances, a leader seems a ne- 
cessity in civilized society as well as among barbarians. 
This seems to demonstrate that if the leader or king has 
the confidence of the people, and is the right kind of a 
man, he may lead his people upward, and bring civiliza- 
tion out of barbarism or even savagery. Or, on the con- 
trary, if the leader or king be an evil-minded man, a man 
of low and bad morals, he may degrade his people, and 
cause even a civilized people to revert to barbarism. 

Examples in history prove this proposition abundantly. 
A notable illustration of the first proposition is Haroun 
al Raschid, of Arabia. About the middle of the seventh 
century A.D., the Arabians were at the lowest stage of 
barbarism, but “under the refining and uplifting influence 
of Haroun al Raschid, the emperor, a culture began. 
Seats of education and study sprang up on all sides, the 
novel science of mathematics was prodigiously advanced. 
The barbarism of the people was turned into civilization 
during his leadership, and under the leadership of his 
still more glorious son, Al Mamoun, the ‘Golden Age’ of 
art and scholarship set in. From the ninth to the six- 
teenth centuries no other nation could compare with the 
Arabians in the extent and value of their intellectual ac- 
complishments.” (Lib. of Univ. His.) 

At the time of this renascence, it seemed that civiliza- 
tion was about to disappear from the face of the earth— 
the Dark Ages in the history of the world—and it may 
be fairly said that the barbaric Arabians rescued it, and 
prevented a world-wide barbarism from supplanting civili- 
zation. They rescued civilization for a time; but their 
fall was as rapid as their rise had been, and to-day they 
are the rude barbarians that they were fifteen hundred 
years ago. 

Their rise was due to the influence of two men, father 
and son. Their fall or reversion was due to the corrup- 
tion and debauchery of the leadership which succeeded 
them. Such, in brief, seems to be the history of many 
nations in the past. Men are raised up to the leadership 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 239 


of a people, whose influence is an uplift to the people, 
and the reverse is just as true. This is more likely to be 
the case in a monarchy than in a republic or a democracy ; 
Asia has never been the home of any but an absolute 
monarchy. 

From the time of the earliest civilization in Egypt, there 
has never been a period that there was not a seat or cen- 
ter of civilization somewhere on the earth, though those 
seats have fluctuated, being now here, now there; yet 
civilization has never been entirely wiped out. From the 
sixth to the tenth century A.D., were the darkest days 
in the history of the human race. What was the cause 
of the great reversion? I can only risk an opinion when 
1 say the dominance of a system that forbade the asser- 
tion of the individuality, as well as the education of the 
masses of the people; and the corruption and debauchery 
of the leadership; which causes, taken together, totally 
destroyed the individuality of the people. I am stating 
the cause and pointing out the antithesis to the proposi- 
tion heretofore stated, as necessary to the highest civiliza- 
tion. 

We of to-day cannot imagine what may have been the 
condition of the people, as regards government, in the 
beginning, before history began to be written, or beyond 
the most hazy tradition; but it is thought to be practically 
certain that the primary form of government was patri- 
archal. The change from the patriarchal to the tribal, 
and then to the national government, came about, prob- 
ably by the development of a patriarchal genius, a man 
of peculiar ability for leadership, who induced others 
than his immediate family descendants to follow his 
lead. This circle widened more and more, until the num- 
bers became too unwieldy for nomads, and a permanent 
government was formulated and established, and became 
known as a nation. Evidently it did not take as many 
people in those early days to set up a national government 
as it does to-day; and then there was no restriction as 
to land occupancy, only as agreed upon. Probably the 
first war that occurred on this earth was on account of 
“disputed possessions.” 

It has ever been the case that leaders of intelligence and 


240 WHAT IS MAN? 


genius, if not of education, have been raised up, from 
time to time, to lead their people onward and upward. 
Indeed, we have instances that prove that intelligence and 
genius are sometimes a greater blessing than education. 
An illustration: Not long ago I knew a young man who 
was a graduate of Harvard College. He was at home on 
a visit, and at the market he bought a rabbit and took it 
home, but his mother told him that she was too ill to 
try to dress it. The young man said he could and would 
dress the rabbit. He went to the basement, and all was 
quiet for some hours, when the young man came to 


the mother and said: “Well, I’ll have to give it up; 
I can’t pick the rabbit—my hands are tired out, my fingers 
are sore.’ The mother said to him: ‘Let me see what 


you have been doing.” He brought the rabbit and showed 
it to her. He had spent three hours “picking” the rabbit, 
and had hair all over the basement; and the rabbit was 
not half picked, at that. “Why, my son,” said the mother, 
“we never pick rabbits—we always skin them.” 

Now, this young man’s genius told him nothing; and 
his college education did not help him a particle in his 
attempt to dress the rabbit. Such an one would have 
been a very poor leader in the events of the past ages, 
because his genius was away below the mediocre. Such 
a man, as a leader, would have been a dead weight to 
his people; and it is just such men, in the past, as lead- 
ers, that kept the primitive Man back. He might do well 
enough in some other place, but not as a leader. We 
would never have dreamed that such a stupid character 
belonged to the Anglo-Saxon branch of the Aryan race. 

But there have been men of brains, intelligence and 
pronounced genius, from the earliest ages of which his- 
tory or tradition gives us a glimpse; and we have every 
reason to believe that there have been men of intelligence 
and genius ever since Man’s creation. We have the 
evidence that intelligence, capacity and genius have been 
exercised by barbarians throughout all the ages. When 
it is said that a Man is a barbarian, or that certain peoples 
are barbarians, it is not saying that they are not men of 
brains and mental capacity; they may have great mental 
capacity, but they are barbarians simply because their 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 241 


moral natures have never been awakened. The early or 
primitive Egyptians had evidently had their moral natures 
awakened to an extent similar to that of the time of 
Noah’s early history, or it may have been a more hazy 
awakening; and degeneration resulted with their pros- 
perity. The carnal mind is all that has ever been awak- 
ened in the barbarian or the savage, and that mind has 
no moral status, no moral attributes, notwithstanding he 
may worship some god. 

This brings us to the question: Has Man, naturally, 
an ethical character? The “Synthetic Philosophy” denies 
that he has, but claims, on the contrary, that all the moral 
nature that Man has now has come into his nature, little 
by little, from experience. And that it is due to this 
synthetic aggregation that Man has arisen from brutish, 
barbaric ignorance to his present state of civilization and 
moral standing. This phase of the question will be dis- 
cussed in a following chapter. 

We have it abundantly demonstrated that savages and 
barbarians have mental capacity and intelligence, when 
we see a student from the “Darkest Africa” graduate 
from Yale College at the head of his class; a native Aus- 
tralian graduate from another American college; and a 
native of Japan taking the prize at the University of 
Michigan, besides three State prizes for oratory. These 
instances prove that, while they, the lowest specimens 
of mankind, have not the energy, because of environment, 
to raise themselves, as a whole, out of barbarism, indi- 
vidually they have the intellect and the capacity to ac- 
quire an education, under proper environment, that equals 
our most intelligent sons of the Anglo-Saxon race. Now, 
where did they get this intelligence and capacity, if it were 
not handed down to them from their progenitors, even 
reaching back to the beginning? These representatives 
of the human race could not have come otherwise by 
their intelligence. Indeed, we have every reason to be- 
lieve that such has been the case from the creation of 
Man. Man has had normal intelligence and capacity from 
the beginning, perhaps not all in equal degree, but as 
nearly so as it is possible for all members of a genus to 
be normal. But some have been hampered and retarded, 


242 WHAT IS MAN? 


because they did not or could not assert their individ- 
uality ; but have been led hither and yon by incompetent 
and evil-minded leaders, who have by some means been 
placed as such, and created an environment not com- 
patible with advancement, until degradation and degen- 
eration had robbed them of all ambition, and they became 
satisfied with their condition. 

In all these cases they did not advance, but degenerated, 
which is the natural result. A people cannot stand still, but 
must either advance or degenerate. There is every reason 
to believe that the native Australians are the same blood 
as were the primitive Egyptians. One branch migrated 
to Egypt and became a great and highly civilized and 
progressive people, under competent leadership; but they 
cut short their existence by reason of excesses in lux- 
urious revelry. The other branch stayed, possibly, where 
they were born, or migrated to that part of the country, 
then, which is now Australia; and, metaphorically speak- 
ing, never woke up. Very much like two brothers back 
in Ohio. One went West when he became a man, and 
there developed into a sturdy manhood and accumulated 
a competency—was, in short, a useful and progressive 
citizen. The other stayed at home and farmed the old 
place; was perfectly satisfied there; never was outside 
of the county in which he was born; had no ideas which 
led him outside of himself and his immediate surround- 
ings; was afraid to ride on a railroad train; and lived 
and died in the same house in which he was born. Now, 
these conditions were not necessarily so, but were so from 
choice; one seemingly had as much native ability as the 
other. 

We do not believe for one moment that “Man, when he 
first became Man, was just a step above the brutes around 
him’’; but, on the contrary, we believe that Man, when he 
was first created by God, had as much native ability, 
capacity and intelligence as he has to-day. Of course he 
did not have as much learning then as now, but he was 
created pure, with an upward tendency; but with a dual 
character and the ability to choose. It is a libel to say that 
God created Man, making him a free moral agent, and 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 243 


did not give him the necessary capacity and intelligence 
to carry out God’s commands. 

But, comparatively speaking, what we call civilization 
is a matter of opinion largely. What one people con- 
sider the highest type of civilization, another would call 
a species of barbarism. Mr. Roswell Field has shown 
this well in the following. He is visiting the Igorotes 
and talking with Hi-Ho, of the village: 

“But they are tremendously interested in the American 
style of dancing,’ went on Hi-Ho, “and they packed the 
ring whenever Abe seized Mrs. Klawhammer in a deathly 
struggle and capered and cavorted. And they went into 
roars of laughter when Abe’s legs got twisted up and 
Mrs. Klawhammer’s side-combs fell out, and he would 
make a fresh clutch to get a stronger grip. It certainly 
was an excruciatingly funny spectacle. . . . Of course 
there was a great deal of opposition to what many of 
our people considered a most indecent exhibition, and the 
Igorote Purity League and Woman’s Protective Asso- 
ciation protested violently and called on our chief in a 
set of resolutions to suppress the show, but I, in turn, 
acted with vigor, and threatened to send for United States 
troops and the missionaries, if Anglo-Saxon reforms were 
not permitted, whereupon the opposition subsided. I do 
not think they cared much about the troops, but they 
were terribly afraid of the missionaries.” 

“Then you favor the waltz?” 

“By no manner of means,” replied Hi-Ho; “but I had 
tc help out the show and save Abe. Indeed, I think your 
style of dancing not only monstrously absurd, but positive- 
ly licentious. Is there any grace or moral purpose in a 
lot of men and women clutching one another and wrest- 
ling over a polished floor, bumping into their opponents, 
or partners, or whatever you call them, and sprawling 
about like so many wild animals of the forest? With us 
the men dance majestically and rhythmically in a circle, 
while the women stand apart, gracefully waving their 
shapely arms and making simple dignified movements of 
the unincumbered feet. J am aware this is regarded by 
you as uncivilized, savage, barbarous, but it seems to 
me in much better taste.” 


DAA WHAT IS MAN? 


This jocular description at our expense is meant to 
show that an Igorote even may criticize our customs as 
well as we do theirs; but so long as there is no universal 
standard of civilization, culture and customs adopted, 
each people has to judge for themselves what constitutes 
the highest civilization. It would be a hard matter to 
define civilization so as to meet the approval of all the 
people in the world. It is much easier to say that it 
is not this, or it is not that, than to say what the high- 
est civilization really is. But it is entirely safe to say 
that the highest type of civilization does not consist en- 
tirely of vast, inestimable fortunes of gold; or long rows 
of twenty-story buildings; or long trains of steam and 
electric cars, electric lights, automobiles, phonographs, 
‘“‘neek-a-boo” or “see-more”’ shirt-waists, luxurious, licen- 
tious revelry or divorce courts, while it is not safe for 
a lady to appear on the streets, unattended, even in broad 
daylight; or where the courts are convicting public of- 
ficials of boodling and grafting; or where a judge of 
the court is acknowledging himself to be a member of 
“set-rich” gangs, organized on purpose to defraud un- 
suspecting people out of their cash, without prospect of 
remuneration; while murders and unmentionable crimes 
are of daily occurrence. These are certainly not the 
attributes of the highest type of civilization. Nothing 
but their material prosperity lifts such a people out of 
the role of savages and barbarians. 

In an address by President Jacob Gould Schurman, to 
the Cornell University graduates, he says: “A waning 
Christianity and a waxing Mammonism are the twin spec- 
ters of our age. And between them not only the natural 
idealism of the spirit, but the Ten Commandments and 
the Golden Rule are disavowed or disregarded, and, in 
their place—at least six active days of the week—is the 
ruthless struggle for life and the success of the strong- 
est, the most cunning, or the most highly favored, 
whether by powers supernal or by powers infernal. 

“The idle rich are an excrescence in any properly or- 
ganized community. And in a democratic republic, in 
which every Man has a vote, be assured that the rights 
which convention grants to property would be swept away 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 245 


if the propertied classes were to become idle, luxurious, 
selfish, hard-hearted, and indifferent to the struggles and 
toils of less fortunate fellow citizens. The vice of the 
age is that men want wealth without undergoing that 
toil by which wealth is created. Among the rich and 
well-to-do business and professional classes grafting has 
been so common that the idea of commercialism has be- 
come a byword and a reproach. 

“The whole nation needs a new baptism of the old virus 
of honesty. But the nation, thank God, is beginning to 
perceive the fatal danger. The reaction caused by re- 
cent revelations testifies to a moral awakening.” 

The real truth is that there is more or less barbarism 
included in the habits and customs of all civilizations, 
whether we acknowledge it or not. The lines of de- 
markation do not run straight, but zigzag notably, and, 
in doing so, include many notions, habits and customs 
which, if not identical to, are on a level with or even 
below the level of the notions, habits and customs of cer- 
tain barbarians. For a so-called Christian people, of in- 
telligence and culture, to bend all their energies to piling 
up dollars, because of the love of the dollar itself, or so 
as to enable the holders of the dollars to indulge in lux- 
urious, licentious revelry and debauchery, certainly veri- 
fies the truth of Saint Paul’s opinion and declaration that 
“The love of money is the root of all evil’; and the 
criticism of President Schurman is indeed a sad commen- 
tary on the character of the citizenship of the United 
States of the twentieth century. 

Lest, some time in the future, some one from a foreign 
clime should see, read and accept the above as an esti- 
mate of the character of the civilization of this people 
at large, it will be noted that the foregoing is only one 
aspect of the character, customs and bent of the people 
of the twentieth century in the United States. More ac- 
curately it is a picture drawn to life of the character, 
customs and notions of two or three cosmopolitan cities 
in the United States. But the civilization of a people 
must not be judged from one viewpoint alone; and so I 
cannot pass without noting that the splendid system of 
schools in the United States is the best in the world and 


246 WHAT IS MAN? 


aims at the education of the masses. The universities, 
colleges, academies and seminaries are abreast of the 
most advanced, and afford literary and scientific instruc- 
tion equal to the best; so that the average mental culture 
is abreast, if not in advance, of any nation in the world. 

It was held by M. Auguste Comte and others eminent 
in letters that ““Nations necessarily pass through a theo- 
logical, a metaphysical and a positive or scientific stage 
of development.” I would think that the United States 
is just coming into the scientific stage in their develop- 
ment. 

The charitable institutions are more numerous and of 
a higher standard than those of any other nation in the 
world. They consist of hospitals for the sick, asylums 
for the insane, deaf, dumb and blind, homes for the 
aged and feeble-minded, alms-houses for the poor, etc. 
Many of these institutions have been established by vari- 
ous religious denominations, and are supported by the 
same; while State institutions are provided in all the 
States, including ‘‘penal resorts,’ besides municipal 
charitable institutions in nearly every city. 

The Christian religion is the most prominent belief 
and acceptance, though there are Jews, Mohammedans, 
Buddhists, Brahmans, sun worshipers,  spiritualists, 
Deists, Atheists, besides some heathen idolaters; in short, 
all manner of beliefs, and all shades of the different sys- 
tems are represented. The Puritanic doctrine has died 
out, and the milk of religious diet is greatly diluted, even 
in the Christian doctrine, by all manner of mixtures, 
under the plea of liberality in belief. In the cities, espe- 
cially, most churches have degenerated into the likeness 
of clubs for the rich and fashionable, there being all 
grades. The poor people have largely quit attending 
church, especially among the Protestant denominations, 
because they are not welcomed by the “smart set’ that 
run the churches. 

The vanity and frivolity of extravagance in dress is 
sapping the life-blood of good sense and decency, espe- 
cially among the very rich. But some people say it helps 
trade, and while it breeds more frivolity and helps to keep 
the dockets of divorce courts full to overflowing, it pos- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 247 


sibly is a good way to spend the dishonestly gained mil- 
lions of money. A clipping is here presented that ex- 
hibits the scandalous frivolity that unbridled luxury in 
dress has come to in the United States: 


Miss ——, daughter of ——, banker, spends more than 
$100,000 a year on clothes, and even at that declares she has to 
practice economy. 

Miss —— is famous in society for her beauty and raiment. 
Her father, who formerly was a partner of ——, is a million- 
aire, and there is no limit placed on her dressmaker’s bills. 
It is of her own volition that she endeavors to keep the annual 
expenditure for her wardrobe reasonably near the $100,000 
mark. It is the easiest thing in the world, Miss —— says, 
for a woman who can afford it to spend much more than 
$100,000 a year on her clothes without being extravagant. 

In her father’s home at Riverdale-on-the-Hudson, a reporter, 
who doubted the possibility of a wardrobe which cost $100,000 
each year to replenish, asked Miss —— how it was done. The 
banker’s daughter, whose beauty is of the statuesque order, 
consented, though a little reluctantly, to explain. 

“You see, when one is permitted to indulge a cultivated taste 
or esthetic idea without concerning herself about the expense,” 
said Miss ——, with a smile, “a bill will run into thousands 
with remarkable rapidity. For instance, it would only require 
one hundred dresses at $1,000 each to reach $100,000. A thou- 
sand dollars is not an extravagant price to pay the best 
Parisian: dressmakers, especially when you consider every- 
thing is hand-made. Indeed, a gown easily may cost from 
$5,000 to $10,000 without in the least betraying its price to the 
casual observer. A gown of real lace may cost almost any 
price. One hundred gowns a year is a conservative estimate 
for the woman who entertains and goes out a great deal, for 
some women make it a rule never to wear the same gown a 
second time. The duty on imported goods also is high. I 
designed everything I wear, for even a consummate artist 
never can know what suits you as well as you yourself know 
it. And, then, one must pay for the name of the artist in 
gowns quite the same as in paintings. Paquin told me his 
best customers were American women, and doubtless money 
is spent lavishly here because fortunes are so quickly made. 

And, then, New York women spend more upon their ward- 
robes than other women, because we have not two seasons, but 
four, and that means new gowns, hats, coats, wraps, etc., four 
times a year. We must have gowns for the country, gowns 
for the city, gowns for the theater, yachting, driving and auto- 
mobiling, to say nothing of reception, calling, dinner and 
ball gowns. The simplest cannot be had for less than $125 
by order from abroad. For instance, the simplest muslin 
frock of yore, which was a modest affair, assumes now the 


248 WHAT IS MAN? 


dignity of a new name in the lingerie gown, and can cost 
almost any price. Formerly it was meant to stand a siege in 
the laundry, but one would hardly trust to the tub a dimity 
‘en princess’ or “Louis XVI,’ embellished with silk embroidery 
and real lace ribbons, which cost from $150 to $1,000. 

“The hats of to-day, too, are so unlike the hats of yesterday 
that one must trust the building of a chapeau only to one who 
understands her art. A fashionable woman must pay from 
$35 to $150 for a hat. For, after all, the hat is to the face 
as a frame is to the picture. Then there is the matter of shoes 
and parasols. Fashion has decreed that shoes must match the 
gown. These must be made to order. The parasol also must 
match, or be so constructed as to enhance the beauty of the 
gown and the wearer. It easily will cost from $18 to $20. 

“You may think gloves to be a mere trifle of the expendi- 
ture On a woman’s wardrobe, but they, too, must be made to 
order. You usually can count on from six to twelve dozen 
pairs a year. And hose for evening gowns may cost as high 
as $50, if embroidered or lace trimmed. Lingerie is no small 
item, for it must all be made by hand, and will run up to $5,000 
or $10,000. One must have wraps and jackets to suit various 
seasons of the year, and the woman with a fad for furs will 
have to exercise care if she wishes to limit herself to $100,000 
a year.’ 


The foregoing speaks for itself, and needs no com- 
ment; it shows the evolution of customs and notions of 
the people, as the dollars pile up; the rush and dash and 
agitation; the “bustling about in foolish haste, in search 
of pleasures vain, that from them fly,” has destroyed the 
old customs and the cultivation of friendship’s charms. 

Fashions in dress have kept apace with the changes in 
modes of travel. In the old times, when stage-coaches 
furnished the most rapid means of transportation, and it 
took months to travel distances that we now cover in a 
day, people stayed at home most of the time. A journey 
was an event to be prayed for, undertaken with trembling 
and prayer, and then talked of, after it was over, for the 
rest of one’s lifetime. 

But now, with lightning express-trains tearing over the 
country in every direction, at all hours of the day and 
night; with steamships, as floating palaces, crossing the 
Atlantic in less than five days’ time; with private yachts 
free of all the waters of the world, and with automobiles 
spinning along at the rate of forty and fifty miles an 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—EGYPT 249 


hour, the man who stays at home is an exception. We 
are as uneasy as flea-inhabited dogs. Nobody is con- 
tented, nowadays, to rest and think and cultivate the de- 
lights of friendship: that day is relegated to the past. We 
must all rush around the surface of the earth as though 
the old fiend were after us. California, Palm Beach, the 
Riviera, Egypt in the winter ; the North Cape or Switzer- 
land in the summer. Indeed, Americans are found every- 
where at all seasons of the year, except at home. And, 
even when we are not gallivanting about the world, we 
are still perpetually in motion, in motor cars, unwilling 
to stay anywhere long enough for the cylinders to cool 
off, metaphorically speaking. 

Perhaps all this is but the outward manifestation of 
the real disease within, the gold mania, which is now a 
raging epidemic, of national extent, and will not permit 
any of us to be at ease. Our nerves are so overwrought 
by the fierce battle for wealth that we simply cannot sit 
still, One of the most unhappy results of this madness 
is found in the decline, almost to extinction, of friend- 
ship. Apparently we no longer have friends, but only 
acquaintances. We never stay long enough in any one’s 
company to experience a friendly feeling for him. If, 
like the man in the play, we meet a man, and exclaim: “A 
sudden thought strikes me, let us swear an eternal friend- 
ship,” the next moment we shake his hand, mount our 
car and never see him again. 

As Schopenhauer says: “True and genuine friendship 
presupposes a strong sympathy with the weal or woe of 
another, purely objective in its character and quite dis- 
interested ; and this, in its turn, means an absolute identi- 
fication of self with the object of friendship.” How can 
we qualify ourselves for the title of friend, according to 
that definition, when we are always in too much of a 
hurry to converse with anybody longer than five to ten 
minutes at a time? 

Rightly cultivated, friendship is one of the greatest 
blessings and pleasures life can give us, and we have sac- 
rificed it for our gold and motion mania. Even during 
those rare intervals when we are forced to be still, we 


280 WHAT IS MAN? 


cannot bear to converse, but must play bridge, go to the 
theater, or do something else that will benumb our minds. 
These things do not breed friendship, any more than busi- 
ness does; and the consequence is that friendship is in 
danger of becoming as obsolete as the saber-toothed tiger. 


CHAP TERS 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN j CHINA—MAN’S PRESENT STATUS, 
CONTINUED 


Tue “Library of Universal History” says: “The Chi- 
nese Empire contains more than five millions of square 
miles, or twice the area of the United States, and has a 
population of almost five hundred millions, or about one- 
third of the number of inhabitants of the globe. China 
Proper, inhabited by the Chinese, is about half the size of 
Europe, and has about four hundred millions of human 
beings within its limits. Of the eighteen provinces of 
China, many contain more inhabitants than some of the 
great European monarchies. China proper contains about 
one-fourth part of the territory of the Empire, and three- 
fourths of the population. It is the portion that com- 
prises that peculiar nation—the Chinese. 

“The Chinese Empire is the oldest now existing on the 
face of the earth, and has until recently formed a sepa- 
rate world, as it were, from the rest of mankind, with a 
history distinctly its own and not connected with that of 
other nations. While great empires have successfully 
risen and fallen in other parts of the world, China has 
remained the same for at least five thousand years, sur- 
viving all the great nations of Western Asia, Northern 
Africa and Europe. It is the only ancient empire which 
has continued to the present time. While other nations 
have passed away, while empires have risen and fallen in 
other parts of Asia and the world, in accordance with the 
inexorable law of change, which seems to govern human 
affairs, national as well as individual, China furnishes an 
example of permanence among nations. Its civilization 
appears to have existed from time immemorial, and may 
have existed before that of the Nile valley; and Egyptian 

251 


252 WHAT IS MAN? 


kings who erected the great pyramids may have lived 
after the founders of the Chinese Empire. Porcelain ves- 
sels, having Chinese mottoes upon them, have been dis- 
covered in the ancient Egyptian tombs—in shape, mate- 
rial and appearance exactly resembling those made in 
China at the present time—and the great Italian anti- 
quary of this century (7. e., the nineteenth), Roselini, be- 
lieved them to have been imported into Egypt from China 
by kings who reigned in Egypt about the time of Moses 
or before. 

“China and its institutions have outlived everything 
else in the world. Ancient Egypt, Chaldea, Assyria, Bab- 
ylonia, Media, Persia, Judea, Greece and Rome have all 
risen, flourished, decayed and died; but China, probably 
more ancient than any of them, has remained the same 
to our own day. It has had twenty-two successive dynas- 
ties; but its customs and institutions, all that constitute 
the life of a nation, have continued fixed and permanent. 
The present European nations, even the oldest of them, 
are young in comparison with the nation of Eastern 
Asia. At the time when the Egyptian kings were build- 
ing their pyramids, China had a settled government and a 
high state of civilization, from which, if it has not mate- 
rially advanced, it has not receded. 

“The Chinese have an extravagant chronology, making 
their country many thousand years old; and their early 
history, like that of other Asiatic nations, is lost in the 
dimness of a very remote antiquity. Their fabulous 
chronology includes dynasties of sovereigns, each of 
whom reigned eighteen thousand years; but, subsequent- 
ly, their lives dwindled to so short a period that the 
reigns of nine kings are embraced in forty-five thousand 
six hundred years. The ten ages from Tan-Kou, or Pan- 
kwo, whom Confucius mentioned as the first man, are 
computed by Chinese writers to comprise ninety-six mil- 
lion years. But the Chinese now regard the fabulous pe- 
riod of their history with contempt. Kung-fu-tsee— 
whose name has been Latinized into Confucius—gives an 
account of the Chinese monarchs for a period of two 
thousand five hundred and sixty-two years before his 
time. (Thus carrying the date of the establishment of 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA _ 253 


the first dynasty to the year 3113 B. C., about 146 years 
before the Egyptian Empire was established, according 
to Baron Bunsen’s estimate; and 413 years before that 
date, according to Sir Gardner Wilkinson. ) 

“The Chinese gradually developed a civilization; and 
early history speaks of sovereigns teaching their subjects 
every science and craft, from astronomy to agriculture; 
from preparing machinery for war to making musical in- 
struments. It appears that the crown was at first elective, 
the people assembling on the death of a sovereign and 
choosing the person whom they considered most fitted to 
be his successor ; the person so chosen being generally the 
prime minister of the deceased monarch. 

“The history of China dates back almost five thousand 
years, but the early portion of it is wholly mythical. Chi- 
nese writers tell us that the founder of that old monarchy 
was Fo-Hi, who became Emperor about 2852 B. C. (only 
152 years before Sir Gardner Wilkinson’s date for the 
establishment of the Egyptian Empire). It is said that 
he taught his subjects how to raise cattle, instructed them 
in the art of writing, and introduced the institution of 
marriage, and the divisions of the year. His successor, 
Chin-Nong, invented the plow, and taught his people 
agriculture and medicine. The third Emperor, Hwang- 
Ti, is said to have invented clocks, weapons, ships, 
wheeled vehicles and musical instruments, and to have 
introduced coins and also weights and measures. ‘Ti-Ku, 
the fourth Emperor, established schools, and introduced 
the custom of polygamy. With his son and successor, 
Yau, who ascended the throne of the Celestial Empire in 
B. C. 2357, the more authentic history of China begins. 
He greatly advanced the civilization and wealth of his 
people, and constructed many roads and canals.” 

For the next two thousand years popular revolutions 
frequently occurred in China, hurling one dynasty from 
the throne and instailing another in its place, until the 
sovereign’s power became so weak and insecure that civil 
wars and wars with the Tartars well-nigh consumed the 
Empire. 

I quote further from the same authority: “In 246 
B. C., Ching-Wang ascended the throne and ruled with 


254 WHAT IS MAN? 


such vigor as to re-establish stability to the throne and 
Empire. He builded the great wall across the northern 
frontier of China Proper, which is the most stupendous 
work of defense ever erected by human hands. Next to 
the great pyramids of Egypt, the great wall of China is 
the most ancient monument of human labor still stand- 
ing. This great wall extends fifteen hundred miles, from 
the Yellow Sea to the western province of Shen-si and 
far into Tartary. To procure a sufficient number of la- 
borers for so great an enterprise, the Emperor ordered 
that every third laboring man throughout his dominion 
should be forced to enter his service; and these were 
obliged to work like slaves, without any further pay than 
a bare supply of food.” 


CHINESE CIVILIZATION 


“The Chinese belong to the great Mongolian race, 
which comprises the nations of all Eastern and a great 
part of Central Asia—the race to which the Japanese, the 
Coreans, the Manchoos, the Mongols proper, the Thibe- 
tans, the Burmese, the Siamese and the Anamese belong. 
Compared with Christian nations, they have been re- 
markably peaceful. We have already referred to the un- 
changeable character of its institutions, its laws and cus- 
toms. The oral language of China has remained the 
same for the last thirty centuries. The great wall is 
now over two thousand years old. All China was inter- 
sected by canals at a very early period, when none ex- 
isted in Europe. The Great Canal, like the Great Wall, 
is unrivaled by any other remaining work of the kind. 
It is twice as long as the Erie Canal, is from two hundred 
to a thousand feet wide, and has many solid granite tanks 
along a great portion of its course. 

“In China have been found tens of thousands of wells 
like the celebrated artesian wells of Europe and Amer- 
ica; and these were sunk, in very ancient times, to pro- 
cure salt water. The manufacture of silk was under- 
stood in the most remote antiquity, the cocoons of the 
silk-worm having been unraveled by a Chinese princess. 
The Chinese have been acquainted with the circulation of 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA_ 255 


the blood many ages before Harvey’s discovery in Eu- 
rope.” 

In the Western World, including Europe, the historical, 
professional and popular belief was that William Harvey 
was the discoverer, in 1628, of the circulation of the 
blood. His memory is indissolubly connected with the 
great event. But as one by one our idols are shattered 
by the revelations of time, so this supposed historical fact 
is controverted on seemingly good grounds; and we are 
really beginning to think that, “truly there is nothing new 
under the sun.” 

An editorial writer in American Medicine, July 2, 
1906, controverts the statement that Harvey discovered 
the circulation of the blood at all. He examines the 
claim made by the countrymen of Michael Servetus, who 
was burned as a heretic by John Calvin in 1553, that the 
circulation of the blood was known to him three-quarters 
of a century before Harvey’s day, and concludes that we 
must acknowledge its justice. In Servetus’s so-called 
heretical work, ‘““De Christianisimi Restitutione,” only two 
copies of which are now in existence, occurs the follow- 
ing passage: “The vital spirit is the result of a mingling 
in the lungs of the inspired air with the elaborated, thin 
portion of the blood, which the right ventricle of the 
heart transmits to the left. But this passage of the blood 
does not, as vulgarly believed, take place through the 
median wall of the heart; but by a clever device the 
thin blood is driven from the right ventricle of the heart 
through the lungs by a long (circuitous) route; it is 
prepared by the lungs, is rendered (reddish) yellow, and 
is transferred from the arterial vein into the venous ar- 
tery. It then becomes mixed with the inspired air in 
this same venous artery, is cleaned of soot by (the act of) 
expiration, and thus the entire mixture is finally drawn 
(into the arteries) from the left ventricle of the heart by 
the diastole—a suitable pabulum, so that it becomes (is 
converted into) spirit (air?).” 

This constitutes, according to the writer, a much more 
lucid account of the circulation than that written by Har- 
vey in his book, “De Motu Cordis,” which is declared to 
be “verbose and somewhat muddled,” Furthermore, 


256 WHAT IS MAN? 


Czsalpinus is put forward by the Italians as the discoy- 
erer, in a volume published in Venice in 1571. This au- 
thor also clearly describes the circulation of the blood. 
The editorial writer and commentator concludes: “Every 
discerning reader of the above passages will see that Ser- 
vetus and Cesalpinus had, long before the birth of Har- 
vey, as clear ideas of the pulmonary circulation as were 
entertained by the latter. And with regard to the general 
circulation, notwithstanding all the rubbish written about 
the arteries carrying air (aer-twentieth-century oxygen), 
the fact is unquestionable that it was known to Hippoc- 
rates himself, perhaps, the continuously definite current 
in the veins. The valves of the latter were shown to 
Harvey at Padua by Frabicius ab Aquapendente. But 
their use was not made clear. “After Harvey returned 
to England, in discussing these structures with an en- 
gineering friend, the latter pointed out that, being placed 
with their free edges toward the heart, their only possible 
use was to maintain a continuous current in that direc- 
tion. The crux of the circulation was solved at last. An 

William Harvey discovered re 

We are now told that the “Heathen Chinese” knew of 
the circulation of the blood many centuries before Har- 
vey was born, and that the fact was made known in Eu- 
rope by returning travelers and missionaries. May it not 
be very probable that the Chinese were really the discov- 
erers of the circulation of the blood? The ancient Egyp- 
tians embalmed their dead not only by swathing the body 
in bandages, but by injecting the bodies with a fluid; but 
it is not known whether or not they injected into the 
blood-vessels. 

Quoting further from the “Library of Universal His- 
tory’: “The Chinese inoculated for smallpox in the ninth 
century, and invented printing about the same time. Their 
bronze money has been in use since B. C. 1100, and its 
form has remained the same for almost nineteen centu- 
ries. The mariner’s compass, gunpowder and the art of 
printing, as practiced by the Chinese, were made known 
in Europe by Christian missionaries who had returned 
from China. These missionaries, coasting the shores of 
the Celestial Empire in Chinese junks, saw a little box 





THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA 257 


with a magnetic needle, called Ting-nan-Tchen, or 
‘needle which points to the south.’ They likewise ob- 
served frightful engines used by the Chinese armies, 
called Ho-poo, or fire guns, into which an inflammable 
powder was put, producing a noise like thunder, and 
throwing stones and pieces of iron with resistless force. 
Father Huc says that the Europeans who entered China 
were as much surprised at the great libraries of the Chi- 
nese as at their artillery, and at the elegant books printed 
rapidly upon a pliant, silky paper by means of wooden 
blocks. 

“The customs of this peculiar people are entirely op- 
posite to our own. They are our antipodes in everything. 
Their magnetic needle points to the south, and they say 
‘west-north’ instead of north-west; ‘east-south’ instead of 
south-east. Their soldiers wear petticoats, satin boots, 
and bead necklaces, carry umbrellas and fans, and make a 
night attack with lanterns in their hands, as they stand in 
greater dread of the dark than of the enemy. They pre- 
fer to have their fireworks in the daytime. Ladies ride in 
wheelbarrows, and cows are driven in carriages. In China 
the stocks are hung upon the neck, instead of put on 
the feet. The family name comes first, and the personal 
name afterward, so that instead of saying John Smith, 
they say Smith John. In mounting a horse the Chinese 
get on on the right side. Their old men fly kites, while 
the little boys look on. They use the left hand instead 
of the right in greeting and farewells, and keep on the 
hat as a sign of respect. Their visiting-cards are printed 
in red and are four feet long. They regard the stomach 
~ as the seat of understanding. Their boats are drawn by 
men, but their carriages are moved by sails. A young 
and pretty woman is a slave, but an old and withered one 
is most highly esteemed and beloved by the entire fam- 
ily. The Emperor is most profoundly reverenced, but the 
empress-mother is far more highly esteemed. The most 
highly prized article of furniture is a camphor-wood cof- 
fin, which is always kept in the best room in the house. 
The legal rate of interest on money is thirty-six per cent. 
They warm their wine. They are great epicures, and 
somewhat gourmands; for, after dining on thirty dishes, 


258 WHAT IS MAN? 


they will sometimes finish up on a duck. They devour 
bird’s nests, snails, and the fins of sharks. Their mourn- 
ing color is white. They mourn for their parents for 
three years. The chief room in the house is called ‘the 
hall of ancestors,’ of whom there are pictures or tablets 
set up against the wall, and these are worshiped. In 
China, more than in any other country, ‘what is gray 
with age becomes religion.’ The unwritten constitution 
of old-age usages continues to act. Says Du Halde: ‘A 
principle as old as the monarchy is this, that the State 
is a large family, and that the Emperor is in the place of 
both father and mother. He must govern his people with 
affection and goodness; he must attend to the smallest 
matters which concern their happiness. When he is sup- 
posed not to have this sentiment, he soon loses his hold 
on the reverence of the people, and his throne becomes 
insecure. The Emperor consequently tries to preserve 
this reputation, so as to retain the love and respect of 
his subjects.’ ”’ 

Andrew Wilson says: “The Chinese people stand un- 
surpassed, and probably unequaled in regard to the pos- 
session of freedom and self-government. The real power 
of the Chinese government is in the literary class. Though 
nominally a monarchy, the government is practically an 
aristocracy of learning, as the humblest and poorest man’s 
son can reach the highest position in the Empire if he has 
the necessary ability and merit. It is not an aristocracy 
of rank or birth, like that of England; nor an aristocracy 
of wealth, like that of the United States; nor a military 
aristocracy, like that of Russia; nor a priestly aristocracy, 
like that of ancient Egypt, and some modern countries, 
as that of Paraguay under the Jesuits, or that of the 
Sandwich Islands under the Protestant missionaries. The 
Chinese aristocracy is a literary aristocracy. 

“All the civil offices in the Empire are given as re- 
wards of literary merit. Competitive examinations are 
held, and only those passing the best examinations are 
eligible to office. The utmost impartiality is observed in 
conducting these public examinations. When the candi- 
dates enter the hall of examination they are searched for 
books and manuscript from which they might have got- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA 259 


ten aid in preparing their essays. If any are detected in 
sly practices, they are disgraced for life. Three sets of 
subjects are assigned, each requiring two days and a 
night, and none is permitted to leave his small apartment 
until the expiration of that time. No erasure or correc- 
tion is permitted.” 

Does the foregoing reveal the secret of the perpetuation 
of the Chinese Empire and civilization? It is the only 
nationality or government that pursues such a course, and 
it is the oldest civilization in the world to-day. The dis- 
tribution of the offices on the score of merit alone secures 
efficiency, and eliminates entirely the extremely pernicious 
influence of “pull,” whether it be political, social, or the 
pull of wealth—the securing of office for purely money 
consideration—or through the influence that affluence be- 
gets among its worshippers, which respects not the man, 
but the wealth which he possesses. All of which, or any 
one of which, may form the basis upon which appointive 
offices are filled in this and other countries, to a great ex- 
tent. Is it any wonder that official corruption and in- 
efficiency are so prevalent here? China is now and al- 
ways has been the antithesis, in its civilization, customs 
and practices, to all the nations that now live or have 
lived since the world began, so far as we know; and in 
that antithesis, it seems, must be found the secret of its 
perpetuation. It may all be summed up in one short sen- 
tence: The absence of political, social and individual 
moral corruption, and profound respect for the rights of 
their fellowmen. Whereas, it is the adoption and prev- 
alence of the direct opposite of this sentiment, viz., politi- 
cal, social and individual moral corruption, and the en- 
tire disregard for the rights of their fellowmen, that 
history says has been the cause, directly or indirectly, of 
the extinction of every nation whose light has gone out. 
Now, if this be the truth, if such be the case. China can 
well afford to be the laughing-stock, as it is to-day, of all 
the Western nations. Surely its conservatism and exclu- 
siveness is to be applauded. 

Again we quote: “The Chinese have three distinct re- 
ligious systems. Concerning the first of these, indeed, lit- 
tle is known; but it seems to have been a species of mono- 


260 WHAT IS MAN? 


theism combined with ancestral worship. At the epoch 
of Confucius this had degenerated into general religious 
indifference. His influence restored the traditional prac- 
tices, but did not tend to the revival of faith in Divine 
revelation. He laid the deep foundation of a moral and 
philosophical creed which for many centuries has re- 
mained indelibly marked upon the Chinese character. 
Taoism was a similar system proposed by the rival 
teacher, Lao-tse. Buddhism was the third religion. It 
was introduced, under the name of the religion of Fo, 
about 68 A. D., and now commands a large number of 
adherents. There have been no considerable modifica- 
tions in the Chinese mind since that time; though the in- 
fluence of the Western nations is beginning, at the pres- 
ent day, to become perceptible, and the end of their long- 
continued conservatism and exclusiveness seems to be 
within sight.” 


CHINESE LITERATURE 


“The Chinese language, unique in itself, is a monu- 
ment at once of the intelligence and of the limitations of 
the Chinese character. It is composed entirely of mono- 
syllabic roots, is devoid of inflections, and practically 
grammarless. By the manner of its use in a given sen- 
tence, each root becomes at need any required part of 
speech. So formless a condition of the instrument of 
human intercommunication would indicate an almost sav- 
age state of the people making use of it; but the Chinese 
were comparatively civilized while Europe was still in 
barbarism. They invented a system of writing no less 
singular than their spoken language. Its plan is ideo- 
graphic, each character standing for an idea, of which a 
conventional drawing was made. As the language de- 
veloped, the original pictures were combined to figure 
new ideas. It was only by slow degrees that any attempt 
at a phonetic system was compiled. The spoken tongue 
remains one of the poorest in existence. The necessity 
of expressing current ideas forced the expedient of vary- 
ing the meaning of the rigid monosyllables by changing 
the intonations with which they were uttered. A word 
uttered with a falling inflection, for instance, has a sig- 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA 261 


nificance different from that belonging to the same word 
spoken with an upward movement of the voice. The same 
peculiarities have doubtless retarded the development of 
the Chinese character, and have tended to their national 
isolation. The expression of their thoughts is necessarily 
confined to the briefest possible statement. There can be 
no variation in the order of words in a sentence without 
changing the meaning of the words themselves. So, 
there are no celebrated Chinese litterateurs, because, from 
the inflexible character of their written language, it is 
impossible to give expression to the lights and shades of 
thought and emotion; they simply refuse to be conveyed 
through such a medium; there could be no expression of 
eloquence, passion and dignity conveyed by their plain, 
cold, ideographic characters.” 


CONFUCIUS 


“The whole mind and conduct of the Chinese race bear 
the impress of Confucianism. Yet Confucius, who lived 
twenty-five centuries ago, claimed no divine mission, nor 
even any radical originality in his philosophical method. 
In his life he scrupulously followed the traditions of the 
elders ; he gathered and arranged the recorded wisdom of 
his predecessors, and professed only to transmit them to 
posterity. The five classics, thus selected and edited, con- 
stitute to-day the essence of wisdom and rule of life for 
one-fourth of the human race. Only one of these books 
—a history of his own province—was written by Confu- 
cius himself; but his disciples recorded the most minute 
particulars of his behavior and preserved his sayings. His 
maxims, purely ethical, are also strictly rational, and 
never appeal to the supernatural. While observing the 
established religious rites of his country, the purport of 
his philosophy is agnostic. He has exerted greater influ- 
ence on the minds of many millions of his fellow crea- 
tures, by means of his writings, than any other man who 
ever lived, excepting the writers of the Jewish and Chris- 
tian Scriptures. The influence of Confucius has main- 
tained in China that great reverence for parents, that ar- 
dent family affection, that love of order, that esteem for 


262 WHAT IS MAN? 


learning and that respect for literary men, which lies at 
the foundation of all the institutions of China. His mi- 
nute and practical code of morals, which is studied by 
all the learned, and which embraces the sum of knowl- 
edge and the principle of government in China, has ever 
since exerted an incalculable influence on the hundreds of 
millions of human beings in the Celestial Empire. ‘This 
fact is abundant evidence of the greatness of the re- 
nowned Chinese law-giver and moral philosopher. Con- 
fucius must have been one of the great intellects of the 
human race. He was one of the few who have devoted 
themselves to the moral betterment of their fellow-men. 
He endeavored to infuse the principle of the purest re- 
ligion and the most perfect standard of morals in the 
character of the whole Chinese people, and was success- 
ful in his laudable efforts. 

“Confucius devoted his life to instructing the Chinese 
people in his moral and religious principles. His system 
is more of a moral philosophy than a religion in the gen- 
eral sense of the term, yet it teaches men how they ought 
to live. The four things which he is said to have taught 
were learning, morals, devotion of soul and reverence. 

“Among his many sage and pithy sayings are the fol- 
lowing: 


At fifteen years I longed for wisdom. At thirty my mind 
was fixed in the pursuit of it. At forty I saw clearly certain 
principles. At fifty I understood the rule given by Heaven. At 
sixty everything I heard I understood. At seventy the desires 
of my heart no longer transgressed the law. 

He is a man who through his earnestness in seeking knowl- 
edge forgets his food, and in his joy for having found it loses 
all sense of his toil, and, thus occupied, is unconscious that 
he has almost reached old age. (Said of himself.) 

To rule with equity is like the North Star, which is fixed 
and all the rest go round it. 

The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply it; not hav- 
ing it, to confess your ignorance. 

Formerly, in hearing men, I heard their words, and gave 
them credit for their conduct; now I hear their words and 
observe their conduct. 

A man’s life depends on virtue; if a bad man lives, it is only 
by good fortune. 

Some proceed blindly to action, without knowledge; I hear 
much, and select the best course. 


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN—CHINA — 263 


Faithfulness and sincerity are the highest things. 

When you transgress, do not fear to return. 

Learn the past and you will know the future. 

The Master said, Shall I teach you what knowledge is? 
When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when 
you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it; 
this is knowledge. 

To see what is right and not to do it is to want courage. 

Worship as though the Deity were present. 

He who offends against Heaven has none to whom he can 
pray. 

If my mind is not engaged in my worship, it is as though I 
worshiped not. 

Coarse rice for food, water for drink, the bended arm for a 
pillow, happiness may be enjoyed even with these, but without 
ne both riches and honor seem to me like the passing 
cloud. 

Grieve not that men know not you; grieve that you know 
not men. 

A good man is serene; a bad man is always in fear. 

There may be fair words and an humble countenance when 
there is little virtue. 

One of his disciples said: If you, Master, do not speak, what 
shall we, your disciples, have to read? The Master said: Does 
Heaven speak? The four seasons pursue their courses, and 
all things are continually being produced; but does Heaven 
say anything? 

Learning without thought is labor lost. Thought without 
learning is death to the mind. 

Let loyalty and truth be paramount with you. 

Have no friends not equal with yourself. 

If you have faults, shrink not from correcting them. 


It will be noted from the foregoing that the antiquity 
of this great people dates back to about 3,000 years B. C.; 
perhaps the migrations into China occurred a century or 
two before the migrations into Egypt. Practically the 
migrations into these respective sections of the world oc- 
curred at or about the same time. They are two dis- 
tinct families of the race, and that fact is a sufficient rea- 
son for one going East and the other going West. The 
simple facts of one family being in the far East, and the 
other family being in the, at that time, far West, almost 
on a line parallel with the Equator, also strongly indicate 
that both families have migrated from some intermediate 
and common point of departure on the earth’s surface. 

The fact that both peoples developed high standards 


264 WHAT IS MAN? 


of civilization at so early a date indicates plainly that 
they were intelligent beings when they migrated to their 
respective future homes. We have no evidence that the 
civilization of either people in any way influenced that 
of the other. And it is a conceded fact that these two 
civilizations were the first civilizations in the world, so 
that neither could have received any outside influence, 
only the one from the other. 

Believing it more authentic and more convincing to 
substantiate our position by facts from the pages of 
history, than to merely advance the claim, we have dwelt 
at considerable length on the histories of Egypt and 
China. We have sought to show by this evidence that 
Man has shown high mental, moral, social, mechanical 
and literary qualifications from his very earliest history. 
Higher, indeed, in the first two civilizations, than in suc- 
ceeding ones. The civilizations of Egypt and China were 
of a higher type three to four thousand years ago than 
exists to-day in the same countries. This convinces us 
that there has been a deterioration in the moral status of 
the race, rather than a gradual, but continuous, improve- 
ment from the condition of total ignorance and savagery 
of the race as taught by evolution. 


CHAPTER, X 


CHALDEA—THE PLACE OF THE BEGINNING—THE GARDEN 
OF EDEN LOCATED—-WHERE ADAM WAS CREATED 
——THE FLOOD A LOCAL CATACLYSM 


As Asta was the cradle of the human race, so the 
cradle of Asiatic history and civilization was the valley 
of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This fertile valley 
anciently embraced a number of territorial and political 
divisions, whose boundaries were often very indefinite. 
“The region between the two rivers called Mesopotamia 
by the Greeks (from mesos, midst, and potami, rivers). 
This was merely a geographical or territorial district, 
and not a political division. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was 
a political, as well as a territorial, division, situated be- 
tween the lower course of the Tigris on the east, and 
Arabia on the west, and corresponding to the geographi- 
cal region which the Hebrews designated as the land of 
Shinar. There is an actual date in Chaldean history as 
fay. backasiass, B.C 

Professor Rawlinson says: “The Chaldean monarchy 
is rather curious from its antiquity than illustrious from 
its great names, or admirable for the extent of its do- 
minions. Less ancient than Egyptian, it claims the ad- 
vantage of priority over every empire or kingdom which 
has grown up on the soil of Asia. The Aryan, Turanian, 
and even the Semitic tribes appear to have been in the 
nomadic condition when the Cushite settlers of Lower 
Babylonia betook themselves to agriculture, erected tem- 
ples, built cities and established a strong and settled gov- 
ernment. The leaven which was to spread by degrees 
through the Asiatic peoples was first deposited on the 
shores of the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the ‘Great 
River’; and hence Bat science, letters, art, ex- 

205 


266 WHAT IS MAN? 


tended themselves northward and eastward. Assyria, 
Media, Semitic Babylonia, Persia, as they derived from 
Chaldea the character of their writing, so were they in- 
debted to the same country for their general notions of 
government and administration, for their architecture, for 
their decorative art, and still more for their science and 
literature. Each people no doubt modified in some meas- 
ure the boon received, adding more or less of its own to 
the common inheritance. But Chaldea stands forth as 
the great parent and original inventress of Asiatic civili- 
zation, without any rival that can reasonably dispute her 
claim.” 


ANCIENT CHALDEANS A VERY MIXED RACE OF PEOPLE 


Some considerable difference of opinion exists as to 
the people who first settled in this fertile valley of the 
Tigris-Euphrates rivers ; as to whether they were Semitic, 
or Hamitic-Aramenians, or Ethiopians. ‘Eminent Ger- 
man ethnic scholars and antiquarians, as Heeren, Neibur, 
Bunsen and Max Muller, say that the ancient Chaldeans 
belonged to the Aramaic race; that they were kindred 
with the Assyrians, Syrians, Hebrews, and Arabs. But 
the Mosaic narrative says they were Hamitic-Ethiopians. 
‘And Cush begat Nimrod (he began to be a mighty one 
in the earth; he was a mighty hunter before the Lord; 
wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter 
before the Lord) ; and the beginning of his kingdom. was 
Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of 
Shinar.’ This view was held by Berosus and Pliny.” 
After fully stating the case, covering many pages, Raw- 
linson says: “It will be one of the objects of this chap- 
ter to show that the Mosaical narrative conveys the exact 
truth—a truth alike in accordance with the earliest clas- 
sical traditions, and with the latest results of modern 
comparative philology.” | 

Space will not permit the giving of his arguments in 
full, but they are quite plausible and perhaps conclusive 
that, at least in some parts of the country, the early set- 
tlers were Hamitic. The real truth is, as gathered from 
Rawlinson and other historians, that the early Chaldeans 
were a very mixed race of people; or rather it may be 


CHALDEA 267 


surely said that there were at least four races of men, 
dwellers in the valley and along the shores of the Indian 
Ocean, extending eastward, all in close proximity to each 
other and intermingling; as the subjects of the early 
kings, and were designated as the “kiprat-arbat,” the four 
nations, or ‘‘Abra-lisun,” the four tongues. Rawlinson 
says: “In Abraham’s time again the league of the four 
kings seems to correspond to a fourfold ethnic division 
of Cushite, Turanian, Semitic and Arian. The chief au- 
thority and ethnic preponderance being with the Cushite. 
The language also of early inscriptions is thought to con- 
tain traces of Semitic and Aryan influence. So that it is 
at least probable that the four tongues intended were not 
mere local dialects, but distinct languages, the represen- 
tatives, respectively, of the four great families of human 
speech.” 

However, it may have been at the beginning of the set- 
tlement of the Chaldean territory. The races seem to 
have mixed and amalgamated until the Semitic race 
gained the ascendancy to the extent, it is acknowledged 
by all ethnic scholars, that when Abraham migrated to 
the northwest, the Semitic race was in control in the 
Tigris-Euphrates valley. The Assyrian monarchy, which 
succeeded the Ancient Chaldean monarchy, was Semitic ; 
while later, the Babylonian Empire had again become “a 
very mixed race of people.” 

All these facts become very interesting when taken in 
connection with the theory of “the flood,” which will be 
presented further along. When analyzed, they substan- 
tiate our position completely. 


THE SCIENTIFIC ATTAINMENTS OF THIS PEOPLE 


Rawlinson says: “No long, detailed account can be 
given of the textile fabrics of the ancient Chaldeans; but 
there is reason to believe that this was a branch of in- 
dustry in which they particularly excelled. We know 
that, as early as the time of Joshua, a Babylonian gar- 
ment had been imported into Palestine, and was of so 
rare a beauty as to attract the covetous regards of Achan, 
in common with certain large masses of precious metals, 


268 WHAT IS MAN? 


The very ancient cylinder above must have belonged to 
a time at least five centuries earlier; upon it we observe 
flounced and fringed garments, delicately striped, and in- 
dicative apparently of an advanced state of textile manu- 
facture. 

“The only sciences in which the early Chaldeans can 
at present be proved to have excelled are the cognate 
ones of arithmetic and astronomy. On the broad’ and 
monotonous plains of Lower Mesopotamia, where the 
earth has little upon it to suggest thought or please by 
variety, the variegated heaven, ever changing with the 
hours and with the seasons, would early attract attention, 
while the clear sky, dry atmosphere, and level horizon 
would afford facilities for observations, so soon as the 
idea of them suggested itself to the minds of the inhabi- 
tants. The Chaldean learning of a later age appears to 
have been originated, in all its branches, by the primitive 
people; in whose language it continued to be written 
even in Semitic times. 

“We are informed by Simplicius that Callisthenes, who 
accompanied Alexander to Babylon, sent to Aristotle 
from that capital a series of astronomical observations, 
which he had found preserved there, extending back to a 
period of 1,903 years from Alexander’s conquest of that 
city. Epigenes related that these observations were re- 
corded upon tablets of baked clay, which is quite in ac- 
cordance with all that we know of the literary habits of 
the people. They must have extended, according to Sim-— 
plicius, as far back as B. C. 2234, and would, therefore, 
seem to have been commenced and carried on by the 
primitive Chaldean people for many centuries. We have 
no means of determining their exact nature or value, as 
none of them have been preserved to us: No doubt they 
were at first extremely simple; but we have every reason 
to conclude that they were of real and substantial char- 
acter. There is nothing fanciful, or astrological, in the 
early astronomy of the Babylonians. Their careful em- 
placement of their chief buildings, which were probably 
used from the earliest times for astronomical purposes, 
their invention of different kinds of dials, and their di- 
vision of the day into hours which we still use, are all 


CHALDEA 269 


solid, though not perhaps very brilliant, achievements. It 
was only in later times that the Chaldeans were fairly 
taxed with imposture and charlatanism; in the early ages 
they seem to have really deserved the eulogy bestowed on 
them by Cicero. 

“Tt may have been the astronomical knowledge of the 
Chaldeans which gave them the confidence to adventure 
on so important voyages. Scripture tells us of the latter 
people, that ‘their cry was in the ships’; and the early 
inscriptions not only make frequent mention of the ships 
of Ur; but, by connecting these vessels with those of 
Ethiopia, seem to imply that they were navigated to con- 
siderable distances. Unfortunately, we possess no mate- 
rials from which to form any idea either of the make and 
character of the Chaldean vessels, or of the nature of 
the trade in which they were employed.” 


CHALDEAN LITERATURE 


Chaldean literature was largely absorbed by and 
merged into Assyrian literature, after the revolt of the 
Assyrians and the establishment of the Assyrian mon- 
archy, with its capital at Nineveh, so that in the ruins of 
Nineveh are found the most reliable official records of 
Chaldea. 

“Assurbanipal, or as the Greeks called him Sardanap- 
alus, is supposed to have stored in his palace at Nine- 
veh not less than 30,000 tablets. Upon every work in his 
library his ownership was stamped as follows: 


“The Palace of Assurbenipal, King of Regions, King 
of Multitudes, King of Assyria, to whom the God of 
Nebo and the Goddess of Tasmeti have granted at- 
tentive ears and open eyes to discover the Writing of 
the Scribes of my Kingdom, whom the Kings my 
Predecessors have employed. In my respect for Nebo, 
the God of Intelligence, I have collected these tab- 
lets; I have had them copied; I have marked them with 
my name; and I have deposited them in my palace.” 


CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF THE DELUGE 


“This account was translated by George Smith from 
the eleventh of a series of tablets describing the adven- 


270 WHAT IS MAN? 


tures of the mythical hero, Izdubar (or Gisdubar), sup- 
posed to be the same as Nimrod. The whole series of 
tablets relates his early life and exploits in hunting, his 
friendship with the faun Heabani, his victory over the 
tyrant Humbaba, the lover of the Goddess Ishtar, his 
illness, the death of Heabani, his wanderings to find his 
ancestor, Hasisadra, who for his piety had been trans- 
lated to the fellowship of the gods. This ancestor relates 
to Izdubar the story of a great flood resembling, in gen- 
eral outlines, the narrative in Genesis, but stamped with 
the impress of the Chaldean religion. Shamas was the 
Sun-god. 

“Shamas made a flood and spake, saying: ‘In the night 
I will cause it to rain from heaven. Enter to the midst of 
thy ship and shut the door.’ He raised a flood and spake, 
saying in the night: ‘I wiil cause it to rain from heaven 
heavily. In the day I celebrated his festival. I had fear 
that day of watching. I entered to the midst of the ship 
and shut my door. For closing the ship I gave to Buzur- 
Sadirabj, the boatman, the palace with its goods.’ 

“In the morning began the raging of the storm from 
the horizon of heaven, extending far and wide. Vul in 
the midst of it thundered, and Nebo and Saru went in 
front ; the throne-bearers went over mountains and plains ; 
the destroyer Nergal overturned; Ninip went in front and 
cast down; the spirits carried destruction, and in their 
glory they swept the earth. The flood of Vul reached to 
heaven. The bright earth was turned to a waste. ilIt 
swept the surface of the earth and destroyed all life. The 
strong deluge over the people reached to heaven. Brother 
no longer saw his brother; it spared no people. 

“Even in heaven the gods feared the tempest and 
sought refuge; they ascended to the heaven of Anu. 
There the gods were crowded in droves, prostrate like 
dogs. Ishtar spake like a child, the great goddess ut- 
tered her speech: ‘All were turned to corruption, and 
then I prophesied evil to the presence of the gods. As I 
prophesied evil, to evil were ali my people devoted. I 
declared, the people whom I the mother have begotten, 
now like the young of the fishes fill the sea.’ The gods, 
grieving for the spirits, were weeping with her; the gods, 


CHALDEA | 271 


seated in their places, with lamentation covered their lips 
for the coming evil. 

“Six days and nights passed; the wind, deluge and 

storm overwhelmed. On the seventh day the storm was 
calmed in its course, and all the deluge, which had de- 
stroyed like an earthquake, was quieted. He caused the 
sea to dry, and the wind and deluge ended. I perceived 
the sea making a tossing and the whole of mankind 
turned to corruption. The corpses floated like reeds. I 
opened the window, and the light broke on my face and 
passed away. I sat down and wept; my tears flowed 
over my face. I perceived the shore at the boundary of 
the sea, the land rose for twelve measures. 
_ “The ship came to the country of Nizir; the mountain 
of Nizir stopped the ship, which was not able to pass over 
it. The first day and the second day there was the moun- 
tain of Nizir; the third day and the fourth day the moun- 
tain of Nizir the same; the fifth and the sixth, the moun- 
tain of Nizir the same. On the seventh day I sent forth 
a dove and it left. The dove went and turned and found 
no resting-place, and it returned. I sent forth a swallow, 
and it left. The raven went and saw the corpses on 
the water, and did eat. It flew and wandered away and 
did not return. | 

“T sent the animals forth to the four winds, I poured 
out a libation, I built an altar on the peak of the moun- 
tain, I took seven jugs of wine, and at the bottom of 
them I placed reeds, pines, and spices. The gods col- 
lected at its burning, the gods collected at its good burn- 
ing; the gods gathered like flies over the surface. From 
of old also the great god in his course had created the 
ereat brightness of Anu.” 

There is no date to this record. The inscription said 
they were copied from still older tablets in the Babylonian 
libraries, but it could not be told how old those original 
tablets were from this copy; but which the king thought 
to have been authentic. 

Prof. Pere Scheil made a discovery, about 1896, at the 
ruins of Sippara of tablets bearing what is supposed, ac- 
cording to the inscription on the tablets, to be Noah’s own 
story of the flood. He says: “It is dated in the reign 


272 WHAT IS MAN? 


of Ammizaduga, King of Babyon, and we know that he 
reigned about 2140 B.C.” This date would be 209 years 
after the flood, and many centuries before the time of 
Moses. Noah is still alive at this date, as the record 
shows that “Noah lived three hundred and fifty years 
after the flood.” 


NOAH’S ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FLOOD 


Parts of the tablet found by Professor Scheil were so 
defaced and broken that the inscription could not be de- 
ciphered; and these are indicated in the following by 
blanks. 

“That That he has That he should kill, that 
he should destroy In the morning that he should 
rain down the extermination That during the night 
he should prolong That he should rain down inun- 
dation The plain he will make its ruin great: the 
city. That which Ramman shall have accomplished in 
the city He says he will overturn the land He 
raises a cry The gods will not fear (Here 
follow several entire lines too mutilated to read.) Ea spake 
the word, and said to me, why wilt thou make men to die? 
—I will reach out my hand to men The deluge 
of which thou speakest Whatever it may be, I 
I, shall I have produced in vain He shall be 
informed of it To the end that he build And 
he shall beget And they may enter into the ship 
That Pirnapistim (Noah) that the oar That 
he may come That he may take That he 
(Here come more mutilated lines. At this point 
George Smith’s tablet is substantially the same, in the 
recital of Noah’s personal experiences of all the wonder- 
ful circumstances of the flood). Noah says: Let me re- 
veal to thee the story of my preservation and the hidden 
thing of the gods let me tell thee. The city of Surippak, 
which thou knowest is placed on the Euphrates, that 
city was very ancient when the gods within it. To make 
a deluge the great gods brought their hearts, their father, 
and their king; their Councilor, the warrior Bell; their 
Throne-bearer, the god Adar, and the god Ea, the Lord 







































































CHALDEA 273 


of the underworld repeated their decree. I this destiny 
hearing as he said to me, Oh! man of Surippak? Son of 
Ubarratutu, destroy the house and build a ship. For I 
will destroy the seed of life, cause them to go up into 
the ship all seed that hath life, the ship which thou shalt 
make cubits its length in measure cubits the 
contents of its breadth and height. Above the deep, roof 
it over. I understood, and said to Ea, my Lord the 
building of the ship which thou commandest if it be made 
by me, they will laugh at me, the children of the people, 
and the old men. Ea opened his mouth and spake to me, 
his servent, If they laugh at thee, thou shalt say to them 
every one who has turned from thee shall be punished, 
for the protection of the gods is over me. I will judge 
my judgment upon all above and below. Close not the 
ship until the season when I shall send the word saying, 
Enter the ship and close the door! 

“In the interior of it, thy grain, thy furniture, thy 
goods, thy wealth, thy man-servents and maid-servents 
and the young men, the cattle of the field and the animals 
of the field as many as I would preserve I will send to 
thee, then make firm the door. The reverent and holy 
one opened his mouth and spake to Ea, his Lord, no one 
has made such ship on the ground to hold all the things. 
The form of the ship let me see and on the ground I 
will make the ship which thou commandest. On the fifth 
day two sides were raised, in its inclosure (hull) four- 
teen ribs also fourteen they numbered above. I placed 
its roof and inclosed it. Sixthly I made it firm, seventh- 
ly I divided its passages. Eighthly its interior I exam- 
ined, openings to water I stopped. I searched for cracks 
and the wanting parts I fixed. Three sari of bitumen I 
poured over the outside. Three sari of bitumen I poured 
over the inside. Three sari of men-bearers who carried 
chests on their heads. I kept a saros of chests for my 
people to eat. Two sari of chests I divided among the 
boatmen. 

“To the gods I caused oxen to be sacrificed. I ap- 
pointed the portion for each day. And wine I gathered 
like the waters of the rivers. And food as the dust of 
the earth. In recepticals my hand placed with the help 








274 WHAT IS MAN? 


of the sun-god, the ship was completed. All was made 
strong and— And above and below the tackling was 
fixed. Then to my possessions I took two-thirds. All I 
had of silver I gathered together. All I had of gold I 
gathered together the whole. All I had of the seed of life 
I gathered together. I caused them all to be carried up 
into the ship. All my men-servents and maid-servents, 
The cattle of the field and the beasts of the field and the 
young men, all of them, I caused to go up. The season 
of the sun-god had fixed, and of which he spake saying, 
‘I will cause it to rain from heaven heavily.’ ‘Enter into 
the midst of the ship and close the door.’ That season 
fixed came round of which He spake saying I will cause 
it to rain from heaven heavily, of that day when I reached 
the twilight, The day which I had watched for with 
fear I entered into my ship and closed the door that I 
might close my ship, to Buzur-Sadairabu the boatman, 
the great house, I gave with all its goods. Then rose the 
water of dawn at daylight like a black cloud on the hori- 
zon of heaven. The thunder god in the midst of it thun- 
dered Nebo and the wind god marched in front, The 
throne bearers (storm clouds) go over the mountain and 
plain, The pestilence god brings with him affliction. The 
war god goes in front and casts down. The angels of 
earth carry the destruction, In their glory they sweep 
through the land. The deluge of the rain god reaches to 
heaven. The darkened earth to waste is turned. The sur- 
face of the earth like fire they sweep. They destroyed all 
life from the face of the earth. To battle against men 
they brought the deluge. Brother saw not brother, men 
knew not one another. Even in heaven the gods feared 
the flood and sought refuge, they ascended to the heaven 
of Anu. The gods like dogs in kennels lay in heaps; 
They cried Istar like a mother and the great goddess 
does utter her speech, ‘All things to clay are turned,’ 
‘And the evil which I proclaimed in the presence of the 
gods, as I announced in the presence of the gods is that 
evil As I announced to evil are devoted all my people. 
And though I the mother have begotten my people, yet 
like the storm of fishes they fill the sea,’ Then the gods 
were weeping with her concerning the spirits. The gods 





CHALDEA 275 


on their thrones were seated weeping. Covered with their 
lips because of the coming evil. Six days and nights the 
wind, the deluge and the storm go on sweeping away. 
The seventh day when it approached the rain subsided, 
and the great deluge which had assailed like a host was 
appeased. The sea began to dry and the wind and flood 
ended. I watched the sea making a tossing, and the 
whole of mankind had turned to clay; like reeds the 
corpses floated. I opened the window and the light 
struck my face; I was sad at heart, I sat down, I wept; 
over my face flowed my tears. I looked at the regions 
bounding the sea. To the twelve points no land was seen. 
To the country of Nizir floated the ship, The mountain 
of Nizir stopped the ship and to pass over it was not 
able. The first day, the second, the Mountain of Nizir the 
same. The third day and fourth day the Mountain of 
Nizir the same. The fifth and sixth day the Mountain of 
Nizir the same. On the seventh day in the course of it 
I sent forth a dove. The dove went and turned, a resting 
place it saw not, it returned back. I sent forth a swallow, 
it left and turned and a resting place it could not see, and 
it returned back. I sent forth a raven and it left, The 
raven went and the corpses (carrion) which were on the 
water it saw it did eat—it floated and was carried away 
—it returned not. I sent the animals forth to the four 
winds of heaven. I sacrificed a sacrifice. I built on the 
peak of the mountain Adgur, jars by sevens I placed. 
Below them I spread reeds, pine wood and spices. The 
gods smelled the odor. The gods smelled the sweet odor. 
The gods like flies over the master the sacrifice gathered. 
Then from afar the great goddess in her approach raised 
up the great zones which Anu had created as his glory. 
Those days I had thought of and never may I forget 
them. May the gods come to my altar. May Bel not 
come to my altar since he did not reflect and make a 
deluge and consigned my people to the deep, when there- 
upon Bel in his approach saw the ship stopped. His 
heart was filled with anger upon gods and spirits. Let 
none come forth alive. Let no man escape the deep. Adar 
opened his mouth and spake, he says to the warrier Bel 
whosoever except Ea can make a design eyen as Ea 


276 WHAT IS MAN? 


knows and all things he teaches. Ea opened his mouth 
and spake, he says to the warrier Bel: Oh! thou counsel- 
lor of the gods, why, why didst thou reflect and didst 
make a deluge? Let the doer of sin bear his sin and let 
the transgressor bear his transgression. May the just 
Prince not be cut off, may the faithful not perish. In- 
stead of making a deluge, may lions increase and men be 
decreased. Instead of making a deluge, may jackals in- 
crease and men be decreased. Instead of making a del- 
uge, may famine happen and men be wasted. Instead of 
making a deluge, may pestilence increase and men de- 
crease. I did not reveal the hidden things of the gods to 
the reverent and wise one a dream. I sent him and the 
hidden thing he heard when Bel had reflected on his 
counsel he went up into the midst of the ship. He took 
my hand and raised me up. He caused me to rise up 
and placed my wife by my side. He turned himself to us 
and established himself to us in a covenant. Hitherto 
Sanas-Napisti (Noah) has been a mortal man. Even 
now Sanas-Napisti and his wife are made like unto the 
gods and borne away as then shall dwell Sanas-Napisti 
(Noah) in a remote place at the mouth of the rivers. 
They took us, and in a remote place at the mouth of the 
rivers they seated us. Thus, according to the inscription 
on the tablet, did Noah personally relate the wonderful 
story of the flood and his preservation.” 

While there are some ear-marks of Chaldean religion 
and superstition in the narrative, as evidenced by the 
names of the gods, it bears great resemblance, in some 
respects, to the Mosaic account of the deluge. And so, 
this story is left for the reader to judge of for himself, 
without further comment than to say that, if Noah really 
wrote or told this story, in the language in which it is 
given, or its equivalent in his native tongue, it is proof 
of a cultured civilization before the time of the flood, in 
this territory also, similar to that of Egypt and China. 
The rhetoric, excellence of speech and the pathos reached, 
with lights and shades in his descriptive story, are not 
very greatly surpassed by the story-tellers of to-day. It 
wili be noted that this story agrees with the George Smith 
translation from the tablet found in the library at Nineveh, 


CHALDEA 277 


particularly in the length of time the flood lasted, viz., 
seven days; while in the Mosaic account it lasted for 
forty days and forty nights, and it was one hundred and 
fifty days before the waters subsided. This record also 
says the city of Surippak, at which Noah lived before the 
flood, was located on the Euphrates river. This will be 
referred to again in the next chapter. 

There are many other writings credited to Assyrian and 
Chaldean literature, but they are said to have been writ- 
ten by Herodotus, and are, therefore, not Assyrian or 
Chaldean literature, if that be true. 


CLIMATIC CONDITIONS IN CHALDEA 


The climate at the head of the Persian Gulf is one of 
extremes, it being very hot in the summertime and very 
cold in the winter. At present the mouth of the Eu- 
phrates river is about 2,600 miles from the Equator ; an- 
ciently it is supposed to have been 2,800 to 3,000 miles 
from the Equator. Rawlinson says of the climate: “Even 
in the more northern part of the country, the district 
about Bagdad, the thermometer often rises during the 
summer to 120 degrees of Fahrenheit in the shade; and 
the inhabitants are forced to retreat to their serdabs or 
cellars, where they remain during the day in an atmos- 
phere which, by the exclusion of the sun’s rays, is re- 
duced to about 100 degrees. Lower down the valley, at 
Zobarr, Busrah, and Mohammrah, the summer tempera- 
ture is still higher; and, owing to the moisture of the at- 
mosphere, consequent on the vicinity of the sea, the heat 
is of that peculiarly oppressive character which prevails 
on the sea-coast of Hindustan, in Ceylon, in the West 
Indian Islands, and at New Orleans, and in other places 
whose situation is similar. The vital powers languish un- 
der this oppression, which produces in the European a 
lassitude of body and a prostration of mind that wholly 
unfit him for active duties. On the Asiatic, however, 
these influences seem to have little effect. The Cha’b 
Arabs, who at present inhabit the region, are a tall and 
warlike race, strong-limbed, and muscular; they appear 
to enjoy the climate, and are as active, as healthy, and as 


278 WHAT IS MAN? 


long-lived as any tribe of their nation. But if man, by 
long residence, becomes thoroughly inured to the intense 
heat of these regions, it is otherwise with the animal 
creation. Camels sicken, and birds are so distressed by 
the high temperature that they sit in the trees about Bag- 
dad, with their mouths open, panting for fresh air.” 

If the summer temperature is so hot as to be very bur- 
densome, the winter season is uncomfortably cool. Win- 
tertime is the rainy season in Chaldea, and, while frost 
and snow are very rare, from its close proximity to the 
gulf, travelers tell us that the air is so damp and cold 
that it so benumbs the Arabs as to make them fall from 
their horses. 


CHALDEAN FRUITAGE 


The fertility of Chaldea in ancient times was pro- 
verbial. Herodotus says: “Of all the countries that we 
know, there is none that is so fruitful in grain. It makes 
no pretention of growing the fig; indeed, the olive, the 
vine, or any other tree of the kind; but in grain it is so 
fruitful as to yield commonly two-hundred-fold, and 
when the production is at the greatest, even three-hun- 
dred-fold. The blade of the wheat-plant and of the bar- 
ley-plant is often four fingers in breadth. As for the 
millet and the sesame, I shall not say to what height 
they grow, though within my own knowledge; for I am 
not ignorant that what I have already written concern- 
ing the fruitfulness of Babylonia must seem incredible 
to those who have not visited the country.” 


PLACE AND TIME OF THE BEGINNING 


We have, in the foregoing, given an epitome of the 
history of three of the most ancient peoples and their 
organized governments, as we find them recorded on the 
pages of history. We might have given more instances 
of very ancient peoples, but these are sufficient for our 
purpose, viz.: 

Egypt, 2700, to 4800, to 13,000 years B. C. 

China, 2850, to 3113, to a traditionally indefinite time 
BiG, 


CHALDEA 270 


Chaldea, 2234 years B. C. 

While there is a great difference of opinion in the 
minds of eminent chronologists as to the antiquity of 
these nations, hardly any two concurring, the most re- 
cent dates that history affords will be taken, because they 
are believed to be more nearly in accord with the facts, 
all things considered, as they are gathered from the rec- 
ords of the past. Egypt 2700, China 2850 years B. C., 
are especially interesting dates, taken in connection with 
some of the great epochs and events of the history of the 
race. 

An effort will be made to substantiate this view, that 
the most recent dates are nearest the correct ones, by ad- 
ducing what we think is a rational and substantial proof 
that the creation of Man on this earth took place even 
less than 4000 years B. C. We are totally unable to find 
anything in the history of the human race to substantiate 
the opinion as expressed by Ridpath and other fabulists 
that the race had its beginning thirty thousand or thirty- 
five thousand years before our era; or even a much longer 
time ago, as advocated by evolutionists, and made neces- 
sary by the doctrine of Darwinian evolution, 

It is also proposed to point out the place, approxi- 
mately, where the great event, the creation of Man, took 
place. In doing this, it is not from any arbitrary opinion 
that we might hold on the subject; or from the assump- 
tion of any superior knowledge of the facts regarding it, 
but, in a rational manner, from the assembling of some 
of the facts of science and history bearing on these prob- 
lems. The interpretation here given of these facts may 
differ from some hitherto given to them, because it would 
seem that such interpretation is more harmonious and 
conducive to a rational solution of these great questions. 

Two of these nations exhibited brilliant civilizations, 
viz., Egypt and China, and date the organization of their 
respective governments some hundreds of years prior to 
the great Deluge related in the Mosaic writings. Even 
by these most recent dates, which have been adopted, this 
statement is abundantly substantiated. The dates here 
given find them both organized monarchies, so there can 
be no reasonable doubt that the migrations of these peo- 


280 WHAT IS MAN? 


ples to the locality in which we find them took place long 
prior to these dates, to give them time for their evolution 
into an organized state of society, sufficient to form a 
general government. Of course the very uncertain quan- 
tity represented by tradition adds thousands of years to 
the dates above given, but in the presence of reasonably 
certain dates we have no reason to invoke the uncertain- 
ties of tradition. 

According to “Usher’s Chronology,” the flood recorded 
in Genesis occurred 2349 years B. C. 

Both Egypt and China have been found to have had 
organized governments, monarchies, which had existed 
for some hundreds of years prior to the date of the flood; 
also we find that there are no breaks in the lines of de- 
scent of these monarchies, such as a universal or world- 
wide flood would necessarily have occasioned, and that 
the literature of these nations presents no history, either 
recorded or traditional, of such a catastrophe ever having 
befallen either of these peoples. 

In Egypt there is no break in the line from Menes, who 
established the First Dynasty, and organized the mon- 
archy, at least 2700 years B. C., according to the Eng- 
lish Egyptologist, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, down to the 
Persian conquest 525 years B. C.; though there were sey- 
eral changes of dynasty in the time. Egypt, therefore, 
was not affected by the Noahacic Deluge; and apparently 
knew nothing of its occurrence. 

According to Confucius’ table, China’s First Dynasty 
was founded by Fo-Hi 3113 years B. C. Other Chinese 
historians say 2850 years B. C. It is not material which 
of these dates is adopted; probably the real truth is that 
both monarchies were formed near to 3000 years B. C. 
There has been no break in the line of descent of the 
Chinese monarchy down to the present time; however, 
there have been many changes of dynasty in the descent. 
The same conclusions as that in the case of Egypt must 
be reached here with regard to China, that it was not 
submerged and desolated by the flood described by Noah; 
whether the Mosaic account be taken as being the au- 
thentic account, or the story translated by Prof. Pere 
Scheil from the tablet recovered from the ruins of the 


CHALDEA 281 


city of Sippara. As the literature of these nations con- 
tains not a line in relation to the flood, it is fair to pre- 
sume that they knew nothing of it. It follows, then, that 
the inhabitants of these two civilizations were not de- 
stroyed by the flood in which Noah played such a con- 
spicuous part. They must, therefore, be reckoned as 
antediluvians, together with others not destroyed, as we 
shall show. 

From these facts we are forced to the conclusion that 
this, great disaster though it was, was not a world-wide 
deluge, but a comparatively local affair, in which every 
living creature in the submerged area was destroyed, 
save Noah and his immediate family. 

We have great reason to believe that this great catas- 
trophe marks the establishment of the Indian Ocean, with 
all its adjuncts. Such an extensive cataclysm as this was, 
and which may have been, for aught we know, brought 
about by Divine appointment and intervention, as would 
seem to be the case from the preceding warnings and the 
order to build the boat; or by the same causes that oper- 
ated to submerge this continent repeatedly, we are told, 
since geological time began; and which must have pro- 
duced great atmospheric, barometric, and terrestrial dis- 
turbances, such as are coincident in our own times with 
earthquakes. The rapid evaporation of water caused 
by the water flowing over the warm earth in such an ex- 
tended area would naturally produce torrential rains—to 
say nothing of the disturbance occasioned by the subsi- 
dence, instantaneous as it must have been, of such a large 
area of the earth’s surface; as did the earthquakes at San 
Francisco and Chili in 1906, which were attended by a 
veritable deluge of rain lasting several days. 

At the time that this great cataclysm occurred, the 
earth was thought to be of small area as compared to 
what it is now known to be, and such a terrible wide- 
spread calamity would be sufficient to make all who were 
cognizant of it believe it to be world-wide in its extent. 
There is no doubt that Noah did believe such to have 
been the case. 

Where the bed of the Indian Ocean now rests was, at 
this time, doubtless the center of the population of the 


282 | WHAT IS MAN? 


world; and the area was densely populated, very natu- 
rally, as it was the birth-place and the home of the race 
up to this time. Noah’s story may be substantially true 
according to his idea of the world. 

We are warranted in saying this, because of Noah’s 
own testimony. First, they had a city located some- 
where on the banks of the Euphrates river; no remains 
of such city have ever been found on the present land 
surface; the city must have been in the submerged terri- 
tory. Second, Noah lived in or near this city, and its 
location must have been the one from which the Ark 
started on its journey; and Noah said that the city had 
been destroyed. Third, the corpses floated like reeds 
upon the water, plainly indicating great numbers to have 
been drowned by the cataclysm. 


GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING IN A SUBMERGED CONTINENT 


That the area where the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea 
now rest was once a continent, or a part of the land sur- 
face of the earth, is not only probable, but reasonably cer- 
tain. There are many grounds for believing that the area 
covered by the waters of the Indian Ocean and Arabian 
Sea, with all their adjuncts, was once a part of the land 
surface of the earth. In the first place, the great string 
of islands reaching, remotely from Madagascar, and par- 
ticularly from Australia to the Malay peninsula, form a 
vast archipelago, extending from the eastern coast of 
Africa to the western shores of India and China, in a 
comparatively straight line, running from southwest to 
northeast diagonally across the Equator. These islands 
mark the southern boundary of the North Pacific Ocean, 
and roughly also the southern boundary line of the Indian 
Ocean. 

The flora and fauna are the same on these islands as 
those on the other side of the Indian Ocean. They are 
now, or have been, inhabited by great numbers of ani- 
mals, such as the stegodon, leptobos, rhinoceros, sus, 
felis, hyena, hippopotamus, tapir and elephant. How 
should animals up to the size of an elephant come on 
these mid-ocean islands if they were always islands, and 


CHALDEA 283 


not a continent, at some time in the past? Even the birds 
of Madagascar are the same as those of the Malay 
peninsula; they are of one common type. 

Ridpath says: “Certain species of palm-trees, which 
are disseminated with great difficulty by seed or trans- 
planting, are common in Singapore, the Molaccas, New 
Guinea, Australia and the western islands of Polynesia. 
Botanists of great reputation have insisted that this dis- 
tribution could not have been made without a continuous 
land-bridge among the countries where this species of 
palms are found.” 

This “land-bridge” was once the elevated southern 
shore-line of the North Pacific Ocean, perhaps irregu- 
larly continuous with the southern shores of Africa, with 
its elevated shore-line so characteristic. The subsidence 
was not sufficient to entirely submerge this elevated pla- 
teau, and so left this string of islands to mark its former 
location. 

“The shoal character of the waters of the greater part 
of the Indian Ocean is a well known fact of marine 
geography. That part of the ocean between the thirtieth 
degree of south latitude and the Equator, bounded east 
and west by Madagascar and the eighteenth meridian 
from Greenwich, is very shoal. Should we take our stand 
on the island of Mauritius or Rodriguez, we should see 
around us a vast area of shallow sea. Even beyond the 
borders of this the waters are not deep, like those of the 
profound Pacific. A relatively slight recession of the 
ocean, such as we may well suppose to occur in one of 
these secular movents to which the fluid surface of the 
earth has been many times subjected in the past, and 
which we know to be actively in operation—though slow- 
ly—at the present time, would lay bare a continent much 
larger than Australia, in the region between the Malay 
archipelago and the eastern coast of Africa. 

“Tn like manner the conclusions of geology are at least 
consistent with the former existence of a continent in 
what is now the bed of the Indian Ocean. Geology rec- 
ognizes clearly two secular processes by which a conti- 
nent existing in this region could have ceased to exist by 
submergence under the sea. One of these is the settling 


284 WHAT IS MAN? 


or sinking of the low-lying tropical lands in question be- 
low the level of the ocean. The other is the encroach- 
ment of the sea by one of those vast fluctuations of the 
presence of which in geological time there are many 
indications.” 

The foregoing constitute the positive or rational rea- 
sons for believing that a continent once existed in this 
locality. But we have negative or inductive reasons 
which substantiate the assertion. In the first place, the 
human race must have had some geographical starting 
point on the earth; we may call it “The Garden of Eden,” 
if we choose, but where was it and where is it located? 
That is a much disputed question, as has been suggested ; 
indeed, it would be difficult, in the whole history of opin- 
ion, to find any subject which has so invited, and at the 
same time so completely baffled, ail conjecture as the lo- 
cation of the Garden of Eden. 

It must be a location on the earth’s surface, toward 
which the indications of ethnography, philology, anthro- 
pology, history and tradition all point alike, as the local- 
ity from which all the varieties of the human race might 
have been diffused, or from which they might have emi- 
erated. The locality of the region satisfying all these 
requirements best, whether it be located on what is now 
identified with the land surface or the water surface of 
the earth, has strong probabilities in its favor; as it is a 
rule that the hypothesis that is most nearly in accord 
with, or that best answers to, all the requirements of the 
case must be accepted, tentatively at least, until a better 
hypothesis is found. This kind of reasoning must have 
its weight in deciding the locality of the Garden, to have 
been a continent now submerged beneath the Indian 
Ocean. All threads tending to the identity of the loca- 
tion of the region of the origin of the human race lead 
in the direction of Asia, but suddenly, as it were, for va- 
rious reasons, they all disappear or apparently run into 
the ground. No man can identify the location of the 
Garden of Eden on the present land surface of the earth, 
meeting all the requirements, as pointed out. I take it 
that it would be folly to try to point out regions where 
the great event, the creation of the human race, could 


CHALDEA 285 


not have taken place, for any reason whatsoever. The 
Euphrates river is the only geographical clue left, by 
which the location may be made; all others seemingly 
have been erased. 

Whete is the river Pison, which compasseth the whole 
land of Havilah? Where is the river Gihon, that com- 
passeth the whole land of Ethiopia? And Hiddekel, 
which floweth toward the east of Assyria? There must 
have been a change in the physical geography of the 
country in the immediate vicinity of the Euphrates river 
since that time. 

There is every reason to believe that the river Eu- 
phrates, as now known, is the identical Euphrates river 
mentioned in the Biblical narrative. “This river, it 1s sus- 
pected, originally emptied into the river Pison, which, 
from its description, flowed from the northeast through 
and watered the Garden until it reached the western 
boundary at or perhaps a little south of the Equator ; 
there turning and flowing along what is now the eastern 
coast of Africa, and emptied into the Pacific Ocean; the 
junction of the two being somewhere along the western 
course of the river Pison, before it turned southward, and 
while yet in the Garden. Noah’s city of Surippak was 
built on the river Euphrates, and therefore it must have 
had its mouth further south and nearer the Equator than 
now, and it must have flowed through a portion of the 
Garden of Eden. This river Pison, as a matter of course, 
was swallowed up in the great cataclysm. 

“The river Gihon, that compasseth the whole land of 
Ethiopia.” The land described as Ethiopia in the Mo- 
saic writings is thought to be that part of Africa lying 
directly south of and adjoining Egypt, now called Somali- 
land. The land of Havilah would seem to be the more 
southern part of East Africa, as British or German East 
Africa. The river Gihon, therefore, must then have 
flowed along the most northern part of the continent, 
which now is the eastern shore of Africa. The river hav- 
ing its origin somewhere near the present Gulf of Aden, 
and emptying into the river Pison. This river also was 
swallowed up when the Indian Ocean was formed. 

The river Hiddekel may have formed the eastern boun- 


286 WHAT IS MAN? 


dary of the Garden of Eden; it cannot be located. The 
large area of country submerged by the Indian Ocean 
may have included much more land surface than that 
which constituted the Garden of Eden, and might well 
have afforded room for all of the rivers named, and with 
the subsidence of the land surface all were swallowed up. 
Thus the rivers mentioned are accounted for, though as 
boundary lines they are irregular. The size of the real 
Garden of Eden is conjectural, perhaps varying accord- 
ing to the fancies of the individual, inasmuch as the 
eastern boundary of the Garden cannot be exactly fixed. 
The most ancient, and I may say prevailing, idea was 
that the river Pison is identical with the Ganges river of 
to-day ; but that could hardly be so, if the land of Havilah 
is located in the African continent, unless the river flowed 
clear across the entire country submerged to form the 
Indian Ocean. However, if this be true, the Garden 
would have extended from what is now the eastern shore 
of Africa, to the Ganges river in India, and northward 
in north latitude, to what is now the mouth of the Eu- 
phrates and Tigris rivers, thus embracing the entire area 
now covered by the waters of the Indian Ocean and Ara- 
bian Sea; and including the greater portion of India, and 
perhaps Baluchistan and a part of Persia; if we care to 
erect a rectangle for the boundary lines of the Garden. 

Since writing the above, there has come to our notice a 
powerful and remarkable confirmation of the theory ad- 
vanced here, viz., that the river Pison, spoken of as one 
of the boundary lines of the Garden of Eden, flowed 
southward along what is now the east coast of Africa, or 
as the record says: “encompassed the whole land of 
Havilah.” It is found in the extensive ruins of the an- 
cient city of Zimbabwe, recently unearthed in Mashona- 
land, in southern Rhodesia, Africa. 

Because of the inability to locate the river Pison on the 
present land surface of the earth, the location of the land 
of Havilah has been a disputed point in the past; some 
holding that the record in Genesis, speaking of the land 
of Havilah, the gold of Ophir, and the Queen of Sheba, 
is a mere fable; while others, failing to see the character 
of fable in the writing, cannot now locate that land. 


CHALDEA 287 


There can be no longer a doubt that the land of Havi- 
lah and our modern German East Africa are one and 
the same; the one being the very ancient or traditional, 
and therefore prehistoric name; the other being the mod- 
ern historic name for the same land. 

Dr. Peters, ex-Governor of German East Africa, de- 
clared before the Anthropological Society of Gottingen 
that: “The rich Havilah of Genesis and Solomon’s gold- 
en Ophir are identical with the stupendous ruins of the 
buried city and ancient mines recently unearthed at Zim- 
babwe.” This view is also confirmed by Prof. Von Lu- 
shan, of the Berlin Anthropological Society. There seems 
to be no doubt in the minds of these men that “the Great 
Zimbabwe is the buried city and ancient capital; and the 
local Makalanga or ‘People of the Sun’ are the lighter 
skinned, native race, with distinctly Jewish traits.” “Scat- 
tered all over southern Rhodesia are found the evidences 
of ancient gold mines, and among which are some of the 
most extensive mines and workings known in the world.” 
It is thought beyond doubt that, “at a conservative esti- 
mate, these mines furnished $375,000,000 worth of gold 
for Solomon’s temple.” 

It is confidently claimed that this city, Zimbabwe, is 
the metropolis of the ancient gold-seekers, as it furnishes 
the most perfect and extensive monuments of prehistoric 
ages, in the form of titanic walls, towers, and temples. 
which suggest architects and builders at least the equal 
of those of the pyramids. 

“To-day the six-foot python crawls in and out through 
the holes in the walls of the temple, which the decay of 
centuries has wrought; bright-hued lizards bask on the 
conical tower; and bluejays, doves and honeybirds find a 
welcome shelter in the recesses of the mighty walls. And 
these, here and there, are cracked and riven by huge for- 
est trees, clad with orchids and festooned with lichen.” 

It was doubtless from this very spot where the opulent 
Queen of Sheba, laden with gold of Ophir and other pres- 
ents, took her departure to visit King Solomon at Jeru- 
salem, whose fame had reached to this far-off region of 
the land of Havilah—then, but Africa now. 

Now, as a matter of course, if the Biblical Havilah is 


288 WHAT IS MAN? 


the same as our modern German East Africa, and the 
river Pison encompassed the whole land, the Indian 
Ocean could not have then existed as now. 

The vast area indicated as the Garden of Eden, and as 
a land surface then, would furnish adequate room for the 
birth-place and home of primitive Man, with all the re- 
quirements before mentioned, and also a climate suitable 
for his necessarily naked condition; it would also fur- 
nish him with tropical fruitage the year round, with which 
to sustain life; at the same time furnishing the best lo- 
cated nidus from which an increasing and developing 
population might disperse, and migrate - to the right or to 
the left, along a common climatic belt. 

It has been claimed and emphasized by some that the 
dispersion of the human race from that central nidus of 
his birth-place, wherever it may have been located, took 
place by diffusion and not by emigration. This, we think, 
is clearly a mistaken opinion. On this point Ridpath 
says: “The inquirer will not have pursued the subject far 
until he perceives that the migrations of antiquity and, 
indeed, at all times, are governed by general laws, show- 
ing the direction and ultimate origin of the ethnic fluctu- 
ations by which the earth was populated. We must not 
suppose that the first men, the first tribes of men, drifted 
over the continents under lawless impulses, blown hither 
and thither like mists before the capricious winds, but 
that all transmigrations by which tribes and peoples were 
carried into new regions of the earth were under the 
reign of law.” 

Thus we assume that emigrants from this central nidus 
pushed on along the same lines of latitude to the west- 
ward, and eventually found the valley of the Nile. Here 
they halted. They apparently knew a “good thing” when 
they saw it. In a word, nature was not explored then as 
now, for the purpose of ascertaining and recording the 
cold and scientific facts as regards the real resources that 
are capable of being converted into cash by the holder; 
but to be admired and embellished and animated, and to 
be peopled everywhere with exquisitely beautiful, though 
perhaps imaginary and supernatural, life and action, Life 


CHALDEA OTe oR 


was a new thing on this earth, and their estimate of it 
then was not the same as nowadays. 

Evidently this people tarried there and made the upper 
Nile valley their home, establishing the first civilization, 
in the way of an organized government, known on this 
earth. The figures and dates heretofore given seemingly 
contradict this statement, making China the oldest or- 
ganized government by at least one hundred and fitty 
years. But it must be remembered that, in each instance, 
the figures and dates given are estimates by different 
men, made long after the events occurred, and they may 
either or both be wrong. But here I am following the 
generally accepted belief that Egypt was the oldest estab- 
lished civilization and organized monarchy. It is not 
material, at this time, which was the first to form a gov- 
ernment—Egypt or China. 

In this way the first settlements in Egypt on the upper 
Nile can be accounted for, which is in accord with his- 
tory; instead of the first settlements being in the lower 
end of the valley at or near Pelusium, as has been sug- 
gested by some writers, in accordance with their theories 
of the origin and dispersion of the race from a central 
nidus in Asia, as now constituted. 

Other families or tribes went westward too, perhaps a 
little nearer to the Equator, or on the other side of the 
Equator, and found homes in Africa. 

Still others migrated eastward, not far from the Equia- 
tor, in the same climatic belt in which they lived, and 
found India, and those peninsular countries of Siam and 
Annam, and then China, or possibly in the reverse order. 
In each instance they are different families or tribes, 
which is sufficient reason for their going separately. 

Seemingly some were blessed with having competent 
leaders, and they prospered as a result, becoming great 
and sturdy peoples. Others were not so blessed, and so 
made less successful adventures. Possibly, and very prob- 
ably, some ethnic differences inthe tribes contributed to 
their successes or their failures; it would be nvuthing 
strange if such were the case, just as such things occur 
to-day. 

Just here I wish to digress a little, to notice the fact 


290 WHAT IS MAN? 


that history tells us that, when the Chinese came into that 
land, they found it inhabited by aboriginal savages, the 
barbarous aborigines of the country; and that the Chi- 
nese migrated thence from their original home in Mcn- 
golia. This statement, with others of like import, is 
used by some writers to disprove the monogenetic theory 
of the origin of Man; and to prove the existence of a 
pre-Adamite race. 

To us this statement proves and only proves that at 
least two separate migrations took place, eventually, to 
the land of China, the Chinese emigrants first going into 
the country known as Mongolia, and then into China. 
Perhaps these migrations were separated by long years, 
maybe hundreds of years; very probably they were. 
There is no known reason why this should not be the 
case, as one family or tribe could as well go there as an- 
other ; and, as before stated, there being different fami- 
lies or tribes, this fact suggests sufficient reason for their 
going separately. 

The later immigrants seem to have had a different 
stimulus behind and prompting them, and so they took 
another lead, and by it they progressed, improving in- 
stead of retrogressing, and set up what is called a civili- 
zation—one that is still living. Perhaps this success 
might all be owing to the differences existing in the lead- 
ership, the bent of mind influencing them. One people, 
being prompted by a certain set of desires and motives, 
take one course, with the inevitable result following, that 
they become savages and barbarians. The other people, 
taking a different course, because of different promptings 
and desires, were successful in another line; they became 
a civilized and progressive people, all owing to their 
moral conception of life, from the ethical stimulus 
prompting them. It is a true saying that, men get just 
what they are looking after, in this world; if they look 
for trouble, they are sure to find it. This only proves 
that men may be successful along any line they study and 
practice. 

It seems practically demonstrated that the human race 
was born with the same capacity, individually and collec- 
tively, that it has to-day; perhaps it would be no exag- 


CHALDEA 291 


geration to say even a greater capacity, because of the 
absence of an aged heredity, in the transmission of cer- 
tain constitutional diseases which destroy the mind, as 
well as the body. But, in the beginning, they were wholly 
untutored, with the bent of the natural mind, which ever 
was—and is now—to take the course which leads through 
the easiest and most pleasing paths, and gives immediate 
results in finding what they are seeking. This is particu- 
larly so when the results sought are pleasure and ease, 
perhaps luxurious ease. The yielding to passion, taste, 
object or emotion, without moral restraint; the blind fol- 
lowing of the lead of the emotions, tastes or passions with- 
out counseling the moral or ethical nature. This is aban- 
donment of all restraint, and being led by the dictates of 
the carnal nature. How long, think you, it will take, in 
such an environment, to breed a race of savages? We 
have every reason to believe that certain of the repre- 
sentatives of primitive Man did yield, just as they do 
now, to the passions, tastes and emotions which are born 
of the carnal nature, and which spring up automatically 
in the minds, during their wanderings over the face of 
the earth, and, in the end, savagery was the result, when 
the environment became fixed. They were not savages 
at once and from the beginning, but only so when the 
environment became fixed; then every child born in that 
environment became a savage, if he grew up in that en- 
vironment. 

From our view of humanity, after a careful perusal of 
the pages of history, such is plainly revealed to be the 
secret of barbarism and savagery. It is only a matter of 
the disregard of the ethical nature, partial or complete, 
that marked the barbarian or the savage from the ethical 
man, just as it does to-day. 

Conversely, certain of primitive men did not yield to 
those depraved passions, tastes and emotions of the car- 
nal nature; but rather, they did yield to the impulses of 
moral promptings and restraints; their moral natures 
were quickened into life, and given the ascendency in 
their counsels, and therefore their careers were different ; 
their lives took the course of advancement and civiliza- 
tion. Thus all civilizations came about by individualities 


292 | WHAT IS MAN? 


yielding to a measure of moral restraint in their conduct; 
the measure of the yielding is the measure of the civiliza- 
tion, and of the purity of character. Even one or two 
depraved and dissolute characters in a community make 
seemingly endless trouble in an ethical society; now, if 
they were all depraved and dissolute there would be har- 
mony, and that would constitute the environment. ‘This 
demonstrates the dual character of Man, the ethical or 
spiritual, and the carnal or material. This is in perfect 
accord with the doctrine of Man’s endowment with a 
“free moral agency” and government, a doctrine of gen- 
eral acceptance. Environment enters here as an influ- 
encing element in either direction, either for civilization 
or savagery. It does not controvert the theory, but rather 
it demonstrates its truth. 

There is probably not a county in any of the States 
comprising the United States, here in this twentieth cen- 
tury, A. D., where veritable barbarians, or even savages, 
may not be found, few or many in numbers; all that holds 
them in check is their environment. Why is this sor 
Simply because their moral natures have never been 
awakened ; they have no moral sense. Some such may be 
and doubtless are the progeny of ancestors of good 
moral attainments, generally speaking, but these repre- 
sentatives have become barbarians by reason of a pre- 
dominating carnal nature. You may call it degeneration ; 
as the subject is usually called a degenerate. We em- 
phatically believe there are not now, and there never 
have been barbarisms, only through the process of de- 
generation, if the non-awakening of the ethical nature be 
degeneration, in the inception. After the environment is 
made up then they are born barbarians and the degenera- 
tion may continue indefinitely. But, to prove that it is 
not technically a degeneration, take one of those chil- 
dren in its infancy, place it in a family of good moral 
character, where the environment is wholesome and con- 
ducive to morality, and note the difference in the charac- 
ter of the future man. The child is very susceptible and 
capable of being influenced, and the juvenile character 
can be moulded by associations. The genus Homo being 
by nature a social being, the associations make their in- 


CHALDEA | 293 


delible impress upon the susceptible brain of youth, which 
continue to influence them through life. 

As a demonstration of the proposition that barbarism 
is only the lapse, the complete dormancy of all the moral 
nature, how often has it been the case that men at the 
lowest point of moral “degeneration” (?) have, from a 
cause outside of themselves, received an awakening of 
their ethical nature, to be followed by a complete revo- 
lution of their lives! 

It is inconceivable that the human race was born a race 
of savages—‘‘just a little step above the brutes around 
them”—and that it has emerged from the condition of 
degradation and savagery to its present state of civiliza- 
tion, and made itself what it is mentally and morally by 
his own exertions. Human nature, per se, has no such 
capacity to accomplish such a task. But rather would I 
believe that Man was created a normal being, pure at the 
start, but with a dual nature; and that all savagery is an 
evolutionary state, brought about by the lapse of and, 
therefore, the lack of assertion of the moral qualities of 
character, in the first step; and later, after the lapse into 
entire abandonment, heredity and environment contribute 
their powerful influences to complete the degradation to 
the savage state. 

Some one has said that a civilized being is one “re- 
claimed from savagery.” I hardly think that a good defi- 
nition, because it is not comprehensive; neither does it 
give the condition which it is purported to define. And 
then, it necessitates that all civilized peoples must have 
been preceded by savagery of the same peoples, at some 
time, which is not always the case. William Jennings 
Bryan’s definition is much better; he says: “Civilization 
is the harmonious development of the human race, physi- 
cally, mentally, and morally—not the development of all 
along one line or the development of a few along all lines, 
but the full and well-rounded development of all in body, 
mind, and heart.” He adds: “If this is the legitimate 
aim of life and of activity, we can judge all proposed 
policies, whether they be economic, political, social, or re- 
ligious, by the effect which they have in aiding or re- 
tarding this development.” 


204 WHAT IS MAN? 


But, to come back to and continue our story: Some 
black men, and some of the same stock that emigrated to 
Egypt, either before or after, took another direction and 
found and rested in what is now Australia; and their de- 
scendants are there to-day, in each case. Other black 
men even went eastward and were left on the islands of 
Melanesia. Some went northward and found a lodg- 
ment in Chaldea.. Rawlinson says: “The conclusions thus 
recommended to us by the consistent traditions of so many 
races, have lately most important and unexpected con- 
firmation from the results of linguistic research. After 
the most remarkable of the Mesopotamian mounds had 
yielded their treasures, and supplied the historical stu- 
dent with numerous and copious documents bearing upon 
the history of the great Assyrian and Babylonian empires, 
it was determined to explore Chaldea proper, where 
mounds of less pretention, but still of considerable height, 
marked the sites of a number of ancient cities. The ex- 
cavations conducted at these places, especially at Niffer, 
Senkereh, Warka, Mughier, were eminently successful. 
Among their other unexpected results was the discovery, 
in the most ancient remains, of a new form of speech, 
differing greatly from the later Babylonian language and 
presenting analogies with the early language of Susiana, 
as well as with that of the second column of the Achz- 
memnian inscriptions. In the grammatical structure this 
ancient tongue resembles dialects of the Turanian family, 
but its vocabulary has been pronounced to be ‘decidedly 
Cushite or Ethiopian’; and modern languages to which it 
approaches the nearest are thought to be the Mahra of 
southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia. Thus, com- 
parative philology appears to confirm the old traditions. 
An eastern Ethiopia, instead of being the invention of 
bewildered ignorance, is rather a reality which hence- 
forth it will require a good deal of skepticism to doubt; 
and the primitive race which bore sway in Chaldea Prop- 
er is, with much probability, assigned to this ethnic type. 

“The most striking physical characteristics of the Afri- 
can Ethiopians were their swart complexions, and their 
crisp or frizzled hair. According to Herodotus the Asi- 
atic Ethiopians were equally black, but their hair was— 


CHALDEA 295 


straight and not frizzled; probably in neither case was the 
complexion what we understand by black, but rather a 
dark red-brown or copper color, which is the tint of the 
modern Gallas and Abyssinians, as well as of the Cha’b 
and Montefik Arabs and the Belooches. 

“The hair was no doubt abundant; but it was certainly 
not woolly, like that of the negroes. There is a marked 
distinction between the negro hair and that of the Ethio- 
pian race, which is sometimes straight, sometimes crisp, 
but never woolly. The African races descended from the 
Ethiopians are, on the whole, a handsome rather than an 
ugly people; their figure is slender and well-shaped; their 
features are regular, and have some delicacy; the fore- 
head is straight and fairly high; the nose is long, straight, 
and fine, but scarcely so prominent as that of the Euro- 
peans; the chin is pointed and good. The principal de- 
fect is in the mouth, which has lips too thick and full for 
beauty, though they are not turned out like a negro’s.” 

There are some special difficulties in the distribution of 
the human race, and this is one of them, that the hy- 
pothesis here adopted alone can give a rational explana- 
tion of, if we hold to the doctrine of monogenesy of the 
human race. If we abandon this theory and adopt the 
doctrine of polygeny, then we may assume that the black 
race had its origin in Africa—emphatically the land of 
the negro—and the Mongolian in China, and so on 
through the list. But eventually this theory involves us 
in just as great or even greater difficulties, unless we ac- 
cept the proposition of the location of the Garden of 
Eden as above stated, and conclude that from thence the 
negro migrated to Africa largely and the other locations 
mentioned from this central nidus. In order to deduce 
from such a situation the natives of Australia and Mel- 
anesia, and those Ethiopians in Chaldea, just described, 
the original stock must have crossed the Indian Ocean 
through several thousands of miles, a hypothesis hardly 
tenable under the law of possibilities even, as they were 
anciently, and are now, neither a migratory nor a mari- 
time people; as they never were known to construct a 
ship, or even a canoe. 

The above presents only a few of the difficulties of the 


2096 WHAT IS MAN? 


polygenous theory of the origin of the different races of 
mankind. More might easily have been adduced, but 
space forbids. Even from these presented, the polygenous 
theory is quite as untenable as the monogenetic theory, 
notwithstanding the great and apparently insurmountable 
difficulties which attend that theory, and which I am free 
to acknowledge, and lay no claim to understanding. For 
instance: | am wholly unable, from any laws in biology 
that I have been able to discover, to account for the dif- 
ferent races of men on the theory of monogenesy. How, 
for instance, a black man or a negro could be the de- 
scendant of a white man, or a Mongolian; or a white 
man or a Mongolian be the descendant of a negro; since 
each species have decided characteristics peculiar to 
themselves, in each instance; and continue to breed 
through thousands of years those characteristics true to 
the species, without lapsing in the least, or showing any 
tendency to reversion to the original stock. All this, I 
am free to say, is beyond my comprehension, and is not 
explained by biology. But if the location for the birth 
of the human race, as pointed out, be accepted, all diffi- 
culty to either theory disappears. 

If we might say that Man, as used in the first and sec- 
ond chapters of Genesis, is merely a generic term com- 
prehending the genus Homo as distinct from another 
genus; as Equus, which includes the several species of 
the horse, ass and zebra; and which we have every rea- 
son to believe were created substantially as we find them, 
in each case, and which though related and capable of a 
degree of amalgamation, but among themselves breed 
true to the species without lapsing, then we might as- 
sume that Homo includes all the races of mankind, but 
not necessarily all springing from one original progeni- 
tor; but, as in the case of the Equidze, from several spe- 
cies of the same genus. This would make Homo all one 
genus, which they are, as proven by their fertility, but 
not necessarily all of one species. This we believe to be 
the actual facts in the case. If such were the accepted 
construction, it would not change the present status of 
the race in the least, but such a construction would sim- 
plify matters very materially and remove all inconsisten- 


CHALDEA 297 


cies as to the several species of the race. It would solve 
the enigma: “Where did Cain get his wife?” Anybody 
might then answer that question, whereas now nobody 
can answer it. The narrative of Cain indeed implies con- 
siderable of a population in his time; emigration had 
pushed out to the land of Nod. Where this land was lo- 
cated it is impossible for us to tell, but Cain went there 
and was married, either before or after going. Now, as 
Cain was the oldest son of Adam, and Adam was the 
progenitor of the human race, how could there have been 
considerable of a population in Cain’s time? It looks to 
me like an impossibility. But, if we allow that Adam 
was merely a representative of the race, let him be black 
or white; red or yellow; and that there were other spe- 
cies of the genus Homo, which might have either pre- 
ceded or succeeded Adam’s creation, this difficulty is 
solved, without detracting one iota from the record, but 
rather illuminating it. 

It seems to me a plain proposition that the word Man, 
in Gen. 1-26, stands for the human race, the genus Homo, 
including all the species of the genus. It is apparently 
just as clear that Adam is spoken of as the representative 
of the genus, treated as a single individual; as an ex- 
ample of the race for instruction, as this is the begin- 
ning of God’s revelation of Himself to Man. He made 
choice of Adam, as the representative to whom He should 
reveal Himself, the same as He made choice of Abraham 
and Israel. 

But the general acceptation and interpretation of the 
only record does not and will not accept of such a con- 
struction and interpretation ; but arbitrarily holds that the 
one man, Adam, is meant when God said: “Let us make 
Man in our own image.’ Therefore, Adam alone must 
be the one progenitor of the human race, notwithstanding 
the different and distinct species or races of mankind. 
And so, though we cannot understand it, as monogenesy 
is the doctrine taught in “The Book,” at least so under- 
stood, and which, by the way, must be regarded as the 
best authority extant on the subject-matter under con- 
sideration, if we might only understand it aright, we pre- 
fer to proceed on that theory. And now, with the one 


298 WHAT IS MAN? 


original nidus of the human race located in this great 
central, equatorial belt, the whole question at once be- 
comes illuminated. The distribution of the races of men, 
as we find them, is capable of understanding, and some 
of the mists are cleared away; but all the incompatibili- 
ties would disappear if “Man” could be interpreted to 
mean the genus Homo, and not the individual Man— 
Adam. 

The family or tribe which were the progenitors of the 
Indo-European race migrated to the eastward and north- 
east, and found a home in India, reaching westward to 
the great plains of Aria, the high-lands of Baluchistan 
and eastern Persia. In this connection Ridpath says: “The 
history of language may be cited as one of the strongest 
proofs of an Eastern origin for the races of the West. 
The discovery of the radical identity of Greek and Sans- 
krit made by scholars in the first half of the present cen- 
tury is, of itself, a fact sufficient to establish the Eastern 
origin of the European Aryans. On no other grounds or 
hypothesis can we account for the fact that the /iiad, the 
Aineid, the Jerusalem Delivered, and the Paradise Lost 
are written in the same tongue as the Vedas. Either the 
great epics, and indeed all literature, mythology, and his- 
tory of the Western nations have been produced by peo- 
ples who had the same ultimate derivation with the in- 
habitants of ancient India, or else the Hindus themselves 
have derived their culture, as well as their blood, from 
some fountain in Europe. The latter supposition can 
hardly be entertained, and certainly not entertained at 
all by any one who has acquainted himself with the sub- 
ject-matter and deductions of ethnology. Indeed, it is 
certain that the ancestors of the European-Aryan peoples 
came out of Western Asia, and after long ages of wan- 
derings and wars fixed themselves, by discovery, oc- 
cupation, and conquest, in the respective countries where 
their descendants, within the historical period, have 
grown into great and famous nations. It is certain also 
that in their westward course in the prehistoric epoch 
they brought with them the language, laws, institutions, 
manners and customs, ambitions and mental habitudes 


CHALDEA : 299 


which the ancestral tribes had possessed before the be- 
ginning of the migratory era. 

“By a method of investigation and reasoning precisely 
analogous to the foregoing, we are able to prove that 
there never was any general migration of primitive peo- 
ples out of Africa into Western Asia. It might be suf- 
ficient to say that here also the ethnic lines, in so far as 
they have been preserved by history, tradition, and lan- 
guage, run in the opposite direction. The westernmost 
parts of the continent of Africa have, as a general fact, 
been peopled with migratory tribes from the eastern parts. 
In ancient times the states and cities which abounded 
and flourished on the southern shores of the Mediter- 
ranean were planted progressively from the east to west. 
Egypt was the oldest of all. Carthage was one of the 
younger plantations of that region of the earth. In the 
westernmost parts of Africa the ethnic lines have been 
sometimes doubled back by the barriers of mountain and 
sea, just as in Europe the Celtic race, having explored 
and, to a certain extent, peopled the southwestern penin- 
sulas of that continent, doubled back and proceeded far 
to the east before the close of the age of migrations. But 
it is clear to the student of these exceptional movements 
that they were made against, and as it were in the face 
of, the cosmic and ethnic law by which the primitive 
tribes had been carried from their Asiatic origin into the 
West. If the study of peoples of Western Asia in an- 
cient and modern times should bring us into contact with 
Ethiopians and Nigritian tribes—if we should find in cer- 
tain places the distribution of black men of the ethnic 
type peculiar to Equatorial Africa, speaking the language 
of that region and having their manners and customs— 
we might well suspect that there had been, at some time 
in the past, a race movement from the direction of the 
Red Sea backwards toward the Caspian, the Persian 
Gulf, and the borders of India. But no such evidences 
have been discovered. On the contrary, the impingement 
of Asiatic races upon the African coast as far south as 
the equatorial region is a fact everywhere attested. The 
movement of mankind in this region has been from the 
Persian Gulf toward the Red Sea and Abyssinia.” 


300 | WHAT IS MAN? 


Eventually, migrations from this central nidus were in 
every direction—westward, eastward, northward and 
southward—in both north and south latitudes, as the race 
became older and more and more inured to the vicissi- 
tudes of weather and climatic changes. They eventually 
pushed southward in south latitude, and northward in 
north latitude. Doubtiess it took some time, perhaps 
some hundreds of years, to bring this about. In the mean 
time, this same original location was the home, or the 
great center of the earth’s population; and, judging from 
Noah’s story, they made considerable progress. In fact 
it was the seat of a comparatively cultured civilization. 
They had even built a city. “That city, Surippak, which 
Ramman shall have accomplished.” An aristocracy had 
grown up, as Noah mentions his ‘“men-servants”’ and 
“maid-servants”’; they had “mansions” and “furniture,” 
and great “‘chests-full’” of effects; they did business, and 
had “gold” and “silver”; and men lived luxuriantly and 
to a great age, as Noah was six hundred years old when 
the flood came. No doubt they were very wicked; that 
would be a very natural result, it being a very densely 
populated district. A dense population in a small area 
always tends to breed crime, as in our large cities to-day. 
Chicago, for instance, has now gained the unenviable 
reputation of being the wickedest city in the world. Of 
course, we pride ourselves on being an advanced civiliza- 
tion, if not even so egotistical indeed as to say the most 
advanced along the lines of civilization of any nation on 
the globe. And yet, in this twentieth century, A. D., with 
all the advantages we have, and have had in the past, we 
are told: “The wickedest city in the world is Chicago” — 
a city located in the center of this most advanced civili- 
zation. Would it be anything strange, then, that in the 
very primitive times of which we are treating, those un- 
tutored men, savages as some would call them, huddled 
together in great numbers in a comparatively small area 
perhaps, should be “very wicked’? 

It is the opinion of one of Chicago’s own citizens, a 
lawyer, who has been traveling over Europe making a 
study of criminology, that there are only two places on 
this earth where life is less respected than in Chicago, 


CHALDEA | boda? 0) AR 


One is a densely populated, semi-civilized portion of Rus- 
sian Poland; the other is a similarly conditioned location 
in Calabrian Italy. Are they savages in Chicago? 

Thus, it is assumed that the human race was created 
and continued to exist in this central location until the 
great deluge came which established the Indian Ocean, 
and, as a matter of course, destroyed all life in the sub- 
merged district; only those were exempt who happened 
to be located on portions of land which were too elevated 
to be submerged. The descendants of the few saved peo- 
ple, in many instances, continue to live on those same 
islands of rescue to this day. ' 

Surely this was a great crisis in the history of the hu- 
man race. Noah tells us that it was because of the wick- 
edness of the people that “the flood came.” From the 
warnings of its coming, and the instructions for prepara- 
tions for safety he had been given, it would seem that it 
was premeditatedly the act of an all-controlling power, 
whatever the reason may have been. We have mother- 
birds which, from instinct, when the young are old 
enough to fly, throw them out of the nest, to force the 
young to be strong, and to force the young to take care 
of themselves; thus, by this act, contributing to a suc- 
cessful life of the young birds. Where did they get this 
instinct ? 

If the human race had continued to live in the Garden 
of Eden, and its immediate vicinity, on and on through 
the ages to come, the great majority of them merely 
eking out a bare existence, even as some do now, this cen- 
tral nidus, the home of the race, would have become so 
densely populated from the now rapidly, and still more 
rapidly, increasing numbers, year by year, that famine 
and pestilence eventually would have been the necessary 
result, and which, from its virulence, might have depopu- 
lated the earth. Aside then, from the cause assigned to 
Noah for their destruction, may there not have been a 
wise design in this destruction of the “nest’’ of the hu- 
man race? 

Noah, in his narrative, claims that the great cataclysm 
was produced by excessively heavy rains, lasting seven 
days (the Biblical narrative says forty days). In that 


302 WHAT IS MAN? 


case the current, caused by the rapidly increasing body 
of water on the surface of the earth, would naturally have 
been from the high-lands of Armenia, the source of the 
Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and along the course of 
these great rivers toward the sea, and would, therefore, 
have carried the Ark into the Pacific Ocean. But, if the 
flood were caused by the sudden subsidence of the land 
surface of the earth, and the consequent in-rushing wa- 
ters from the ocean adjoining, the current would natu- 
rally be in the opposite direction, and would, therefore, 
carry the Ark toward the high-lands of Armenia, where 
indeed it is said to have landed ; having been carried there 
on the crest of the furious waves caused by the in-rushing 
waters from the Pacific Ocean. Even this little incident 
substantiates the theory here advanced. 

We have reason to believe that there were many people 
located in various places, on land that now forms the 
shores of the Indian Ocean, who were also saved from 
destruction by the great deluge. A little figuring will 
convince the most skeptical that such must have been the 
case. ‘The flood is said to have taken place in the year 
2349 B. C. We find the people of Chaldea so numerous 
in the year 2234 B. C. as to have an organized govern- 
ment, and so scientifically advanced in civilization as to 
have invented a plan, and the necessary instruments, to 
make accurate astronomical observations and calcula- 
tions, only 115 years after Noah and his three sons and 
their wives had been saved by means of the Ark, and “‘set 
down at the mouth of the rivers.” There is no record 
that Noah and his wife were blessed with any more chil- 
dren after this time. The repopulation of the country, 
and eventually the world at large in that case, would have 
to come by descent from these three couples, viz., Noah’s 
three sons and their wives. That is the orthodox teach- 
ing, made necessary by the belief entertained by Noah, 
that the flood was a world-wide flood, and that all life of 
whatsoever kind was destroyed, save only what was in the 
Ark. 

The average excess of births over deaths in the United 
States, for the decade from 1890 to 1900, was 17.7 per 
1,000, or 1.77 per cent. It may be that the death-rate 
then was not as high as now; or the birth-rate may have 


CHALDEA ! 303 


been higher then than now. It is very probable that it 
was. The birth-rate was much higher with the Jews in 
Egypt than now, for when Jacob and his family of sev- 
enty souls went down to Egypt, after a residence there 
of two hundred and twelve years, they numbered “nearly 
three million people.” This would make a net yearly in- 
crease of about 5 per cent. So that, instead of calcu- 
lating the net increase at 1.77 per cent., as in our own 
time, we will give them all the benefit we can, and cal- 
culate a net increase of 5 per cent. for 115 years; begin+ 
ning with the six progenitors, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, 
and their wives. Because babies are not born in frac- 
tions we will have to allow a yearly increase in stated 
numbers for some years before we can begin to count 
the per cent. Here again we will be liberal and allow | 
what would seem to be the limit in reproduction, viz., 
three, which is 50 per cent., until the number is reached 
where 5 per cent. will give at least one whole number, 
which is twenty. This will take five years, then counting 
5 per cent. for 110 years. At the end of this time there 
would be just 2,000 people all told, old and young. After 
this very liberal allowance for increase, there would be 
just a little hamlet on the vast Babylonian plains. Rather 
a small number to constitute a monarchy. However, 
some of the ancient kingdoms and even monarchies in- 
cluded very small numbers of people. 

Genesis 11:2 says: “And it came to pass, as they jour- 
neyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land 
of Shinar; and they dwelt there.” Who were they that 
journeyed from the east? This, apparently, was the first 
time “they” had seen these plains, and they came from 
the east to these plains. These people, probably, are a 
part of the people that constituted the “four nations” or 
“four tongues.” Possibly by this time these people had 
learned agriculture, at least in a limited sense, and could 
make use of the wheat and barley which grew indige- 
nously in the Euphrates valley; and had also learned to 
store up their winter supply of food in harvest time, oth- 
erwise they would have had nothing to live on for nine 
months out of the year, according to the best information 
we can obtain. We necessarily conclude, therefore, that 


304 : WHAT IS MAN? 


on the land which became the shore line of tne Indian 
Ocean, especially to the eastward of the Euphrates and 
Tigris rivers, in what is now Persia, Baluchistan and In- 
dia, there were many tribes and peoples who did not per- 
ish in this, though extensive and disastrous, catastrophe 
—the flood—and who migrated westward along the 
shores of the Indian Ocean to the fertile valley which 
constituted the plain of Shinar, and eventually founded 
the monarchy of Chaldea. 

If we knew the location of the city of Surippak, near 
which or in which Noah dwelt, we fancy we could point 
very closely to the spot where the creation of Man took 
place. But that is an impossibility, since we believe it to 
be at the bottom of the Indian Ocean; but Noah says it 
was located on the Euphrates river. It was evidently lo- 
cated several hundred miles from where the Ark landed 
on Ararat, as it was on its journey for several days— 
“six days and nights,’ Noah says on the tablet, for the 
Ark to be floated to its landing-place. The Biblical ac- 
count gives a much longer time than this, it being one 
hundred and fifty days before Noah disembarked. 

The distance per day a boat would be driven by such 
an avalanche of water rushing into the subsided area can 
only be conjectured; the current must necessarily have 
been a rapid one, as the result of such conditions; and 
Noah must have traveled from 2500 to 3000 miles from 
his starting-point to his landing. This would bring his 
starting-point very close to the fifth parallel; as the head 
of the Persian Gulf is now about 2600 miles north of the 
Equator. 

The current probably would be, under the conditions 
we have stipposed, very nearly directly north from the 
in-rushing, torrential waves, spreading over so wide a 
space, and with the Pacific Ocean for a head, to give the 
waves momentum. We may, therefore, mark the loca- 
tion of the city, approximately, to be somewhat near the 
sixtieth parallel of longitude, east of Greenwich, where it 
crosses the fifth parallel of latitude; and the location 
from where Noah started on his journey. Somewhere in 
this immediate vicinity, too, must be located the spot 
where the creation of Adam or “Man” took place. 


CHAPTER XI 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED—FOR WHAT PURPOSE—-MAN’S 
PRESENT STATUS CONCLUDED—-MAN’S PROBABLE 
OBJECTIVE CONSIDERED 


In the pages immediately preceding there has been 
pointed out, approximately, the place where Man was 
created. In the immediately succeeding pages an attempt 
will be made to point out the date, approximately, when 
the great event took place. This being a much disputed 
question, we premise that, if a different result is ob- 
tained by the process here used in solving the problem, 
from what others have obtained by other processes, or by 
no real process whatever, only guesswork, it will not be 
from any arbitrary notion on the subject which the writer 
might entertain, but because statistics and figures force 
us to take cognizance of their revelations. 

A possible clue that we may have as to this date, aside 
from and beyond certain historical data, is the approxi- 
mate net increase per annum, of the human race, by 
means of the excess of births over deaths. The great 
question is, the percentage of net increase we are to al- 
low for those primitive times. The excess of births over 
deaths is an important question, because our reason tells 
us that, the greater the rate of increase, the shorter will 
be the time required to produce a certain number, and 
the smaller the rate of increase, the longer will be the 
time required. The only way to even approximate that 
net increase is by statistics kept in our own times. Though 
it is practically certain that the rate of increase was 
greater in prehistoric times than it is now. 

We have seen that the Jews’ net increase, while in 
Egypt, was about five per cent. per annum; but that 
probably is excessive, perhaps phenomenal, in the light 

305 


306 : WHAT IS MAN? 


of statistics for the last one hundred years in Europe and 
America. As to a world-wide increase, we have no sta- 
tistics showing it. While the great majority of the na- 
tionalities, of which we have statistics for the last one 
hundred years, show a much smaller net increase, there 
are some peoples that show even a greater increase dur- 
ing the last century than did the Jews in Egypt. These 
are isolated cases, however, and their statistics also may 
be defective. 

There are several good reasons for believing that the 
rate of increase was greater in primitive times than now. 
The great age attained by men, as recorded in history, 
would show a smaller death-rate than now. ‘Then there 
were not as many diseases to destroy life as there are 
now. And then, again, they had not begun to cultivate 
the esthetic side of life as now, which makes it unpopu- 
lar to raise large families of children, or indeed any chil- 
dren at all, in some circles; to say nothing of the great 
prevalence to-day of the crime of infanticide, not to men- 
tion the great multiplicity of preventive measures in use 
to-day. I take it that human nature has always been 
about the same as now in the passion of sexuality; I see 
no reason to doubt it in the least. The difference is that, 
in primitive times, they bided the consequences ; now, they 
do not. So that there is no reasonable doubt but that the 
rate of net increase was greater in primitive times than 
now. 

From the United States Census Office I procured the 
following tables of statistics, which throw some light on 
the subject: 

The following table shows the average birth-rate and 
death-rate, in the countries named, for the decade from 
1890 to 1899 inclusive, with the annual excess of births 
over deaths per 1000 of population: 


Excess of 

Birth- Death- births over 

Countries. rate. rate. deaths. 
LI Pa StSteg i a fee salen to 35.1 17.4 17.7 
Enoplahd and Wales, ves s sess 30.1 18.4 11.7 
BcGrlane vote vive vans wee neste pays 30.7 18.8 11.9 
Predertd ei ia sities werted aes Sdee?s 23.0 18.1 4.9 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 307 











Excess of 

Birth- Death- births over 

Countries. rate. rate. deaths. 
DTW ay fess teaeh ole many ty Bl 30.4 16.5 13.9 
URVERLCED 3 CV ONG aK Ue Nate a7 27.2 16.4 10.8 
FUSE ak oe ee ee ee ee tenes RAi2 27.1 10.2 
PUNsary Cree Heed er 40.5 30.3 10,2 
Getman) Fompire en ae hele 36.2 22.5 13.7 
E'PUSSTA EC alc IAstie a sees Ge 36.8 a2) 14.7 
Detwerlignds VM eo hin, 32.7 18.6 14.1 
Sr are eee te ut Maen ea, 28.9 19.2 9.7 
DENCE ee Ue ae aN 22.2 21.6 0.6 
Bea hyn te Uo eee ety ce aeD en IaT 35.5 24.6 10.9 
PWELreriana rice ue cue Ue ie HOR 27.7 . 19.0 8.7 

VETO R Re iin. aya ne 31.53 20.51 II.02 


Thus, in fifteen States in Europe and the United States, 
the average excess of births over deaths was 11.02 per 
1000 of population, or approximately one and one-tenth 
(1.1) per cent. 

The following table shows the average annual rate of 
increase by excess of births, resulting from a division of 
the increase in number of native white population having 
mothers born in specified countries, by the mean popule- 
tion of corresponding nativity: 


Average annual 


Birthplace of mothers. excess of births. 
FRESE rece cree whe oe Ge Sang eR iva 
LSEEIMARV sto s a Lato ie flake Voth tones 22:7 
Pnelandianc Wales) ovis woe hell 31.5 
Canada nt Pe hides see atcha ah Dak 40.9 
STATS EER EN Dean oa MEAS hy NREL RA SR 45.0 
EOLA ec aie, sty OUR coe 48.3 
LEE a War fk ASI Af BLOND AAR DNR da A 48.9 
MCAETORE DY GACY. ua TE ates es Ge 35.4 
ACTS Tage ES an NPL AERO See Pie SoS 58.4 
BOUENE roe his 1) Lee een aA 64.5 
PUGRI AWA. c aur strates ele Sitters eae ti2 





Average excess of births per 1,000 pop. 42.56 or 4.25% 


Some of these nationalities, as the Jews, are those 
whose virility is above the average, perhaps. Taking the 
two tables together, the average would be 26.76 per 1000 
population, or 2.67 per cent. per annum, 


308 : WHAT IS MAN? 


I offer still another table, wishing to get all the light 
possible on the subject. 

Hubner’s “Geographisch-Statische,’ for the century 
from 1800 to 1900, for eight countries. This table in- 
cludes for the century all the political divisions included 
in the several states at the end of the century: 


U. S. A. increased from.... 5,000,000 to 77,000,000 in century 
ce 


Russia ; » +e 38,000,000 “‘ 107,000,000 
German Empire sa. 25,000,000 ‘‘ 56,000,000 v4 
Austro-Hungary 6... 25,000,000 ‘f 47,000,000 if 
United Kingdom “  .... 16,000,000 “ 42,000,000 ie 
France 2. 27,000,000 “ 39,000,000 ‘ 
Spain ct 11,000,000 “‘ 16,000,000 Hy 
Turkey « .... 8,000,000 “ 10,000,000 "i 
€é ‘é “ce 
Sweden and Norway (i OOC. 000 7,000,000 





Total for nine countries...158,000,000 ‘‘ 401,000,000 


From this table we see that these nine countries made 
a net increase in population in the nineteenth century of 
243,000,000, or 158 per cent. increase, a pro rata of 1.58 
per cent. per annum, in spite of wars and famines and 
pestilences. These figures are in whole numbers, and 
millions at that, and therefore are only approximately cor- 
rect; they cannot be exact. 

These countries include practically all those from which 
the United States derived its great increase of 1540 per 
cent. by immigration largely, or to which persons might 
have gone from the United States, so that, for our pur- 
pose, they are practically the statistics for one country. 

Here are three tables, two showing the net gain for a 
decade each, and one for a century, of practically all of 
Europe and the United States, for times specified. They 
do not agree in the net annual increase. 

One shows I.1 per cent. net increase per year for a 
decade. 

One shows 4.25 per cent. net increase per year for a 
decade. 

One shows 1.58 per cent. net increase per year for a 
century. 

All these statistics are compiled under different cir- 
cumstances ; probably neither one gives us a true esti- 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED, 309 


mate, in the sense of a world-wide estimate. If we add 
the first two together and average them, we have the 
average for twenty years of 26.76 per 1000, or 2.67 per 
cent. per annum. Taking the three tables together, we 
come as near an average as it is possible for us to ar- 
rive at. This gives us a net annual increase of 2.3 per 
cent. per year for 120 years practically, notwithstanding 
the extensive wars, famines and pestilences of those years. 

We may assume that the average net increase of popu- 
lation from excess of births over deaths, throughout thie 
world, would be in the neighborhood of 2 per cent. per 
annum, at least in these days. We are convinced that the 
true figures would be over rather than under these fig- 
ures; and still more would 2 per cent. be inadequate to 
count the net gain in primitive times, but we want to be 
liberai; and will, therefore, calculate the increase at the 
rate of 2 per cent. even, to avoid fractions and to give 
Opposing opinions all the benefit we can. 

According to Bible chronology, the world was created 
4004 years B. C., and, at an indefinite time after that, 
Man was created. There is no way of telling the time 
elapsing between the first and second verses of Genesis I ; 
and then there is another time, elapsing between the sec- 
ond and the twenty-sixth verses of the same chapter, just 
as indefinite. 

But, according to the same chronology, the Great Del- 
uge took place 2349 years B. C., or 1655 years after the 
creation of the world. Now, if we knew how many in- 
habitants there were on the earth at the time of the Flood, 
and the rate of net increase per annum, we could then 
tell exactly when God created Man; but that is an im- 
possibility, since we know neither element in the problem. 
The only way for us to do, then, is to compute the net 
yearly increase in the population, from statistics in our 
own times, and estimate by comparison of conditions, aft- 
er taking all the different contingencies into considera- 
tion; and thus, approximately, arrive at the time when 
the great event took place. As a matter of course, we 
cannot tell exactly the year when the creation of Man 
took place, but by reasoning along lines we are all capa- 
ble of using, viz., common sense, the time given will be 


310 WHAT IS MAN? 


approximately correct. Our aim, however, is not in par- 
ticular to show the exact date of the great event, so much 
as to deinonstrate by figures that the world could easily 
have been populated inside of the Biblical chronology. 

Starting, then, on the hypothesis of the monogenesy of 
the human race, and allowing no time to elapse between 
the first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis, 
or between the second and the twenty-sixth verses of 
Genesis I, and allowing the first generation, or thirty-five 
years, for the first two to become ten souls; then add one 
each year to the number as the net increase for the next 
sixty-five years, the balance of the first century, which is 
away below the probable increase, and certainly very lib- 
eral in allowance, and we have seventy-five souls all told 
at the end of the first century. Now, allow 2 per cent. 
net annual increase for 1555 years—to arrive at the time 
of the Flood, 2349 years B. C. 


At the end of the 2d century we would have.. 370 
At the end of the 3d century we would have.. 2,591 
At the end of the 4th century we would have. 18,417 
At the end of the 5th century we would have. 124,252 
At the end of the 6th century we would have. 909,056 
At the end of the 7th century we would have. 6,585,668 
At the end of the 8th century we would have. 49,418,542 
At the end of the oth century we would have. 358,676,519 
At the end of the 1oth century we would have 2,668,787,042 
At the end of the 11th century we would have 19,973,489,259 


At the end of the r2th century we would have 138, 144,658,665 
At the end of the 13th century we would have __1,000,594,834,420 | 
At the end of the 14th century we would have —_7,157,963,430,033 
At the end of the 15th century we would have 52,081,464,774,580 
At the end of the 16th century we would have 383,578,007,053,869 
At the end of 1,655 years we would have. .. .1,130,809,842,190,809 


This is more than one hundred million times the popu- 
lation of the globe to-day. I hardly think there were that | 
many people on the earth at the time of the Flood, do 
you? Very well, have we been too liberal in the allow- 
ance for annual increase? Well, then, cut it in two, and 
we have 565,404,921,095,409. It still takes fifteen figures 
to express the number. Cut it in two again, and still it 
takes fifteen figures to tell it—282,702,460,547,704—and 
this would be only one-half of 1 per cent. annual increase. 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED ait 


Well, allow as many to die from pestilence and famine 
as there are inhabitants on the globe to-day; yes, be lib- 
eral and allow 2,000,000,000, and then we have hardly 
disturbed the figures 282,700,460,547,704. What can be 
the matter? One of two things must be wrong, viz., 
either the rate of net increase is too large, too liberal; or 
the time allowed is too long—must be. Which is it? One 
or both? Well, cut it in two again, which will make it 
one-quarter of 1 per cent. net increase; still we have to 
have fifteen figures to express the numbers, though the 
figures are smaller: 141,350,230,273,952. Certainly this 
liberality ought to satisfy the most exacting. 

The trouble is, that 1655 years is too long a time. The 
rate of net increase, at 2 per cent. per annum, is not too 
large, but rather it is below the percentage of increase, 
even in the nineteenth century, A. D. 

Now, cut the time in two and see how it will work. 
Make it 827 years and still we have 84,379,849, an in- 
credible number—more than the population of the United 
States. The Garden of Eden, as large as we have esti- 
mated it to be, would not supply the half of that number 
with food to live on, supposing that the other half had 
emigrated to Egypt, China, India, and Africa. So that 
we are inclined to cut down the time at least one century 
and still have a population of 1,551,601; this number is 
more reasonable, but still too large, probably. But we 
want to be liberal in our estimates; besides there is a 
large area of land surface in our Garden and the country 
adjacent thereto—and so, for the benefit of those who 
consider the time too short, we will give them double the 
population that China has now, or 800,000,000. This 
would require 940 years at an annual net increase of 2 
per cent. So add 940 to 2349, the date of the Flood, and 
we have 3289 years B. C., which is 715 years after 4004. 
This date approximately (more probably 100 years later 
would be nearer exact) gives us the time that elapsed 
between the first and the twenty-sixth verses of the first 
chapter of Genesis; whether the word “day” means a 
period of 24 hours, or an indefinite epoch of time, to suit 
the fancy. Man was then created 715 years after 4004 
B. C., or in the year 3289 B. C. Not earlier than that, 


312 WHAT IS MAN? 


according to our best judgment, and the statistics we can 
get to-day. 

This result is in striking contrast to the extravagant 
estimates of Ridpath, who gives the antiquity of Man at 
“thirty to thirty-five thousand years,” but gives us no 
Statistics, or adequate reasons to support his estimates ; 
or, the still more extravagant estimates of evolutionists, 
who deem time a great essential in their scheme, and 
therefore place the antiquity of Man at a round three 
millions of years. 

But it is expected that some one will say: “Oh, that’s 
all nonsense ; geology shows us that Man must have been 
on this earth thousands of years before this date, 3289 
B. C. Why, the tasks to be performed, the changes to 
be wrought, to make this earth a suitable habitation for 
Man, could not by any possibility have been accomplished 
in the limited time here stated!” 

To the first class of philosophers I would say: Geology 
does not state any time, but men try to make it appear 
so, from certain and uncertain fossil remains found in 
the crust of the earth. They assert that such and such 
must have been the case; we believe that to be the honest 
judgment of some, while in others it is for no other rea- 
son than to substantiate their own claims. It is their own 
preconceived notions they seek to confirm, rather than to 
get at the truth or the facts. The appearance of fossil 
remains, and the surroundings in which they are found, 
may tell of great age, but how great, as measured by our 
years, cannot be told—only guessed at, 7. ¢., estimated. 

To the second proposition I would say: This class of 
philosophers limit the infinite possibilities of God, so as 
to harmonize with the limited possibilities of Man. Be- 
sides that, it is not known how much time elapsed be- 
tween the first and second verses of Genesis; it may have 
been eons of time. We do not figure from 4004 B.'C., 
but from the date of the Flood; dating back 940 years, 
which brings it 715 years after 4004 B. C. “In the be- 
ginning: We cannot tell when that was. 

As to whether the word “day,” as used in the record, 
means an epoch of time of indefinite length, or a period 
of 24 hours, we have only to say that no man has ever 





WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 313 


defined “day” or “night” any more clearly than is done 
here: “And He called the light day, and the darkness He 
called night. And the evening and morning were the 
first day.” Does an epoch of time have an evening and 
a morning, only in a possible metaphoric sense; and does 
not the metaphor express the fancy and the imagination 
of the interpreter, instead of the text? 


FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID MAN COME ONTO THIS EARTH ?-— 
MAN’S PROBABLE OBJECTIVE 


In the preceding pages answers have been found to 
three of the questions proposed. The other or last ques- 
tion, “For what purpose did Man come onto this earth?” 
and a part of the original question, ‘““Man’s probable ob- 
jective,” are so closely related, so intertwined, so in- 
separable, that they will be treated together in the follow- 
ing pages. 

We ought, perhaps, to offer an apology for entering 
upon this ground; but it has seemed to the writer that 
it is an essential part of the general subject, “What Is 
Man?” that it is necessary to discuss it, in order to make 
a rational, purposeful, consistent whole. 

We will premise by saying, we make no claims of be- 
ing a theologian; neither do we wish to pose as an icono- 
clast; but what we shall have to say will be from the 
standpoint of a “lay member,” in an attempt to under- 
stand and simplify Man’s attitude while here. In doing 
so, we may possibly tear off some of the false dressings, 
_ and rob the question of some of the mysteries that have 
accumulated through the ages. 

As a foundation, or ground-work upon which to erect 
a structure, in discussing Man’s present status, and prob- 
able objective, we wish to consider the following: Has 
Man, inherently, a moral nature, or did he acquire it by 
experience? 

Evolutionists and the advocates of the “synthetic phil- 
osophy” deny that Man, originally, had even the shadow 
of an ethical character ; deny even that he was an intelli- 
gent being, originally; but, on the other hand, they as- 
sert that “Man was just a little step above the brutes 


314 WHAT IS MAN? 


around him” when he first became Man;; that all his in- 
telligence has been acquired, and his brain enlarged ac- 
cordingly, as a necessary result; that all the moral na- 
ture Man has now is the result of experience, a wholly 
acquired condition; that, little by little, step by step, evo- 
lution has enlarged Man’s horizon, so expanded his na- 
ture, that it has given him his intelligence, with all its 
attributes; so that now Man has grown into, or become, 
a being possessed of and fully equipped with intelligence, 
and an acquired moral nature; that Man has improved 
and made of himself all that he is, by his own efforts; 
and, in so doing, new and additional attributes have been 
implanted in his nature, so that, whereas, in the begin- 
ning, Man had no more intelligence than the brutes 
around him, and from which he sprang, having no moral 
nature whatever, now he has both intelligence and an 
ethical character ; all of which mighty improvement is due 
to Man’s own efforts, and are additional qualities in Man 
from what he was made with, without the aid or guidance 
of anything outside of himself. Mr. Darwin holds that 
even the enlarged brain of Man over that of the monkey 
is the result of an evolutionary accretion of brain matter, 
caused by the development of new and improved facul- 
ties under the influence of the stimulus of selection; re- 
sulting in an enlarged brain with entirely new depart- 
ments; entirely new and acquired centers of conscious- 
ness ; and all this by reason of his own exertion, assisted 
and guided by selection. 

The foregoing bring us back to grounds that we have 
already gone over and shown the fallacy of. This is only 
another instance in which an organized being is purported 
to have made use of and exercised a function of which 
the being is said to have not even the shadow in his origi- 
nal organism; and as a result of his using such function, 
which he did not have, new and additional brain matter 
was implanted in the brain of this freak of nature, which 
gave all the progeny which should follow this new func- 
tion. 

Is there another field in all the realm of reason, where 
such twaddle would be accorded the standing of reason 
at all? It would not be any more unreasonable to say 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 315 


that Man had been created without hands; but, wishing, 
yea, longing, to play ball, he played ball without hands, 
until, finally, hands had grown because he had played 
ball; and thereafter all human beings had been born with 
hands. 

Then, again, knowing human nature as we do, it is an 
absurdity to say that Man, though he had not a shadow 
of an ethical character originally, should reach out after 
and covet, yea, more than that, did actually practice moral 
principles; when even now, in this civilized land, the 
strong tendency in at least one-half of the inhabitants is 
to despise and reject all moral restraint; and that, too, 
after the moral code is known to all. 

The impossibility of Man’s using a function or faculty 
before he has such function or faculty, no, not even the 
shadow of it, brands this doctrine of “synthetic philoso- 
phy” as fiction; and the fact that such action, as above 
alleged, is contrary to human nature, even in this ad- 
vanced stage of civilization, brands the doctrine as un- 
true. But it is consistent with their theory of evolution 
nevertheless, for is it a possibility that Man could have a 
moral nature, be it ever so infinitesimally small or em- 
bryonic, if his progenitor was any one of the four an- 
thropoid apes? 

We have seen, in Chapter IV, the difference between 
the brains of the ape and that of Man; now, the differ- 
ence in the brains expresses, to an extent, the difference 
in the mental qualities of the genera. But there is an- 
other element in Man that gives Man his self-conscious- 
_ness, and that prompts, yea, forces, the brain to act in 
the capacity of thinking along certain lines which the 
will points out—that element is the soul of Man. The 
moral qualities, or the ethical character in Man ts an ex- 
pression of the mentality, along that line of conscious- 
ness; and, we may add, if that line of conscious mental- 
ity, or that sphere of his nature, is never awakened, or 
quickened into physiological activity, never will he think 
along those lines; the faculties in that sphere will lie dor- 
mant if they are not awakened, the same as in any other 
sphere. 

We do not know that the ape has any self-conscious- 


316 | WHAT IS MAN? 


ness, inasmuch as it has no mind or soul. It is impossi- 
ble, then, that the ape could be the progenitor of a being 
having both mind and soul. 

The extra brain matter in Man’s brain, then, must be 
the cause of his having the necessary mental qualifica- 
tions for an ethical character, instead of the reverse, viz., 
that, having acquired a moral nature, he must have a 
correspondingly enlarged brain. The latter is certainly 
getting the cart before the horse. 

We have seen that there is no adequate cause set up, 
in the theory of evolution, for the extra brain matter in 
Man over that of his so-called evolutionary progenitor, 
the ape. There is no adequate cause, other than creation 
by God, for the extra mental qualifications of Man. Man 
must, therefore, have been created with brain capacity to 
support a moral nature; Man must have received an ethi- 
cal endowment from the Creator. It was put there by the 
Creator when He made Man in His own image. Man 
has always had the faculties of a moral nature, if only 
they be quickened into life and made an active part of 
the being. The moral nature of Man is founded in the 
likeness to the Divine Nature. The only impetus that 
Man has, in the direction of an ethical nature, is through 
that part of Man made in the image of God. It is an 
undisputable fact that Man has been a more or less moral 
being all along the ages, from the very beginning, ac- 
cording to his awakening and environment. And it is 
unanimously admitted by all, who admit the being of 
God, that Man is a moral and responsible being, existing 
under the dominion of natural law. 

Just here comes in the matter of revelation. How 
should Man know the true God, unless He revealed Him- 
self to Man? He could not know Him at all. That Man 
could not and did not know God is proven by the many 
different forms of Man-made religions of to-day; they 
were evolved because Man had moral attributes and as- 
pirations, and they cried out for expression, and found 
it in the different forms invented. It is also a notable 
fact that all the different forms of Man-made religions 
have some standard of ethics; some higher and some 
lower, according to their enlightenment. A notable in- 


SO a 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 317 


stance, demonstrating that Man could not and did not 
know God, without a revelation of Himself to Man, is 
found in Paul’s visit to Athens; after an interval of more 
than three thousand years of experience, and when Greece 
was in the heyday of her scholastic civilization, they were 
in total ignorance of the true God; yet their reason told 
them that there must be a true God, the Creator of the 
Universe. Paul said: ‘“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that 
in all things ye are too superstitious. For, as I passed 
by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this 
inscription, “To the Unknown God’; whom, therefore, ye 
ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.” Besides 
this historically recorded instance, many others might be 
cited, even to-day, where they have no knowledge of 
God. 

The matter of a direct revelation from God to Man is 
denied by many, on the ground that it is an impossibility ; 
the chief reason assigned for its being an impossibility is 
that they never had such revelation, In this connection 
it is worth noticing that, as a rule, no one ever had a 
revelation, at least which they recognized as such, until 
they had put themselves in a suitable attitude, mentally 
and spiritually. Even in this material world you cannot 
receive, or at least hear, a message over the telephone 
until you have complied with the law of physics that re- 
quires you to place the receiver to your ear. So that it 
constitutes no argument against direct revelation from 
God to Man, because some men have never had such 
revelation. There are thousands of intelligent men who 
never have placed the receiver to their ears, and so they 
have never received a message over the telephone. Would 
that be received as competent testimony tending to show 
that no Man ever had received a message over the tele- 
phone? 

It was, therefore, an actual necessity that God should 
reveal Himself to Man, in order to guide and direct his 
moral nature in the right channel ; and to have a standard 
established. It can be shown that human nature, and hu- 
man reason, unaided, has never offered to Man any clear 
standard of moral quality for actions, and that, even if it 
could do so, its decisions lack authority to control the will 


318 WHAT IS MAN? 


of Man; so that they are at best but opinions which may 
be received or not. Notwithstanding this, deists as- 
sert that this law is given in nature sufficiently, and that 
revelation is unnecessary. That argument has no stand- 
ing whatever in the face of the fact that the ancient 
Greeks, with all their education and philosophic minds, 
had no knowledge of God. 

A proposition which, it seems to me, all should sub- 
scribe, is that there can be no higher form of ethics, or 
code of morals, than that of the Creator, because He must 
be the true God. Such a code is said to have been deliy- 
ered to Moses, and which are perfectly adapted to the 
wants of all men, in all ages; in the shape of the Ten 
Commandments. Volumes have been written to show 
that God did not, or that He did, so deliver the Ten Com- 
mandments to Moses in the mountain. We will not dis- 
cuss that question here. 

God selected the people to whom He should make His 
revelation of Himself; and did it first by delivering to 
Moses His code of ethics; supplemental revelations were 
given through the prophets; and lastly by Jesus Christ; 
and the world has no other authentic revelation; there- 
fore, this code is the standard authority. This authority 
tells us that Man is a creature made in the image of his 
Creator, with faculties capable of giving him a working 
understanding of his condition here, if he will but use 
the faculties which he has. It is a fact, then, that Man 
was placed here under moral, as well as under physical, 
laws; the moral code we believe to be just as perfect, as 
binding and as potent, as we know the physical laws to 
be. God’s justice is just as enduring, just as potent, as 
His love toward Man. 

Let me illustrate what is meant by God’s justice, and 
God’s love. “God so loved the world (Man) that He 
gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ From 
this it will be seen that God’s love for Man, though great, 
is no greater than His law, else they could not be placed 
in apposition. The two conditions go together; the one 
avails nothing without the other. The contingency is set 
forth in that, if Man will believe on Jesus Christ, God 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 319 


will bestow on Man everlasting life; if Man will not de 
this, God will not do the other—a promise made per- 
fectly plain. Yet there are many people who have faith 
only in the first paragraph, turning a deaf ear to the con- 
tingency. They depend entirely on God’s love for their 
well-being now and hereafter, and require no reciprocal 
action, though an integral part of the proposition. 

One more example of God’s stern justice toward Man: 
God would not coerce Man; He would not force any- 
thing upon Man against his will; therefore, God gave to 
Man his own predetermining powers; a free will to do as 
he should choose in the matter of accepting Christ. To 
force Man to accept Him would be ignoble, tyrannical, 
and unjust, and would rob both God and Man of all nobil- 
ity and glory. God made Mama free agent, not a machine, 
in His justice toward Man, otherwise Man could not have 
improved at all; he would have been totally devoid of 
character. 

A future, eternal life, then, is a conditional gift to Man 
by God. It does not belong to mankind by reason of his 
having been born into this world, but it may be merited 
by any Man. Right here is the reason for our consider- 
ing his present status, and probable objective. Man's 
present status reveals Man in an attitude of dependency, 
as a tenant on probation; his future condition depending 
upon whether or not he accepts of the conditions made in 
the protocol. The choice of fulfilling the conditions or 
not, rests wholly with the tenant; a failure to act will 
bring about the same result as a refusal to comply with 
the requirements. 

It is alleged that Man was created in the image of 
God. Weare led to inquire: In what respect is Man, as 
we see him and as he appears to-day, a likeness or an 
image of God? Physically, mentally, morally, or spir- 
itually? If we say physically, then we affirm that God 
has a form like unto Man. There are those who con- 
ceive such to be the case because it is said that God 
walked and talked with Man. If God is omnipresent, 
this quality precludes a physical being; but, being omnip- 
otent, He can assume a physical form and presence at 
any time, One of the great churches of to-day teaches 


320 WHAT IS MAN? 


that “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in 
His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and 
truth.” While this is the wording of Man in part, the 
concept is that of Jesus Christ, who declares that “God 
is a Spirit”; so that it is not a physical image that Man 
bears of God. We apprehend that Man is, in a measure, 
like unto God in his mental and moral qualities; wisdom 
or knowledge is the same, whether they be possessed by 
God or a human being, differing only in degree. Man’s 
knowledge is limited because he is a finite being; God’s 
mental intelligence is perfect, and therefore limitless; He 
is infinite; but the human mind, as far as it goes, the ca- 
pacity to reason, and gain and retain knowledge; the un- 
derstanding, including Man’s faculties for a moral char- 
acter, is the point of comparison. We apprehend that 
Man possesses the mental and moral qualities, though in 
a miniature degree, that we attribute to God. The love 
of truth, honesty and righteousness would be the same in 
Man that the love of those same virtues would be in God, 
differing only in degree and limited by Man’s concept of 
what constitutes truth, honesty and righteousness. Of 
course the perfection of God enables Him to know ab- 
solutely what is truth, honesty and righteousness. We 
believe that the miniature morality of Man is the same as 
that of God, as far as it goes, as there is but one true 
standard of morality. But we apprehend that the great 
point of resemblance in Man to the Creator is the spir- 
itual ego; the soul of Man. This, it may now be said, is 
the real Man. Man is not the physical entity which we 
see with our physical eyes; but the spiritual ego, which 
is unseen by the material eye. We have seen many habi- 
tations or tenements in which Man dwelt, but we have 
never seen Man. That is to say, the ego, Man. We 
have heard Man talk and sing. It is true he used a part 
of the body to do this, but it was the promptings and the 
emotions of the spiritual ego that gave the impetus, play- 
ing on the human form, that produced the vibrations 
which came in contact with a material part of my being 
that enabled me to hear the Man talk and sing: Then it 
was the spiritual ego, residing in my body, that took 
cognizance of the effect of the vibrations, interpreted and 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 321 


understood them. This, we take it, is the immortal part, 
the soul of Man; and is made in the image of God. ‘For 
the things which are seen are temporal; but the things 
which are unseen are eternal.” 

Besides this material world, then, in which all crea- 
tures live and move and have a being, there is another 
very essential element, an eternal will, an infinite intelli- 
gence, God’s intelligence, which pervades all space and 
all things, is everywhere. Man’s brain, through the 
promptings of the soul, is the only thing that can form 
a connection with this intelligence in this material world. 
Intelligence does not reside within Man’s brain only, or 
per se. All that Man knows he has discovered; he did 
not originate it; that is, Man did not evolve it from 
nothing. “All things are yours; occupy till I come.” 
Everything existed, all intelligence existed before Man 
came upon the scene. Man has discovered a great many 
things, but he never created anything. I mean in this 
connection any primary principles. Man has made many 
machines, but that is only the applying and assembling 
of principles already in existence. His mechanical genius 
is most admirable. All things were made for Man, and 
anticipated his coming. For instance: Newton did not 
make and put into operation the law of gravity; the law 
existed just as much before as after he discovered it. Of 
course his discovery of the law added that much to the 
sum total of the knowledge of Man, but it added nothing 
to the already existing laws, which is another name for 
God’s intelligence. Man never made any of the elements. 
- Benjamin Franklin did not invent electricity, but discov- 
ered it. So every law in every department of physics, 
chemistry, or even mathematics existed prior to Man's 
advent here, by virtue of God’s fiat, and is a part of the 
eternal will. Man has discovered very many things, has 
made great advancement; whether he has made as much 
of an advancement as he ought to have done is another 
question. But we believe he is right now at the apex, 
the highest point of his attainment in the world’s history. 
Knowledge is more widespread, and of a better quality, 
than at any time in the world’s history. In Europe, and 
especially in America, Man has made great progress in 


322 WHAT IS MAN? 


the direction of material things; and perhaps one-half of 
the race now living understand the moral laws pretty 
well; the other half have a very hazy understanding of 
the standard moral laws. But the great majority of the 
first half have not adopted what they do know of the 
moral laws into their personal lives, to the extent that 
they have adopted and made use of the material or physi- 
cal laws. The great majority of mankind are negligent 
and careless about cultivating an ethical character. It is 
perfectly amazing to note the apathy, the carelessness, the 
neglect of the generality of mankind with reference to the 
moral nature of mankind. Just now it is hardly deemed 
worthy of consideration by the great majority even in 
this civilized nation. The great thing now is material 
prosperity, or, as we have before called it, the gold ma- 
nia, to the sacrifice of all moral principles—anything to 
get hold of the dollar. This deplorable condition touches 
all branches of the social, and business, and professional 
worlds. 

So we say that facts or principles, much less material 
things, are not originated in Man’s brain, but are per- 
ceived, are drunk in by reason of the brain-cells being 
quickened into physiological activity; a new brain-cell 
has been awakened to action every time any man gets a 
new idea—we may call it discovery. In reality, nothing 
has been added to this world, since it was created, that 
is new. Ecclesiastes was right when he said: “There is 
nothing new under the sun.” But Man has made great 
and mighty changes in the existing things in this earth 
since his coming. He has practically subdued the earth, 
and harnessed many of its great forces; the last to be so 
harnessed and made use of is electricity. Maybe there 
are other forces just as potent not yet discovered. All 
this is in accord with his commission. The limit has not 
been reached, as new brain-cells are being quickened into 
physiological activity every moment, which means new 
ideas are being sprung, new discoveries being made, giv- 
ing a wider. range of understanding, and new application 
of even old principles. | } 

The soul, through the physiological action of the brain- 
cells, is the only medium of communication between God 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 323 


and Man. Through the higher spiritual or moral char- 
acter, one set of faculties are quickened into new life, and 
are capable of cultivation and improvement. Through 
the material or carnal nature, another set of faculties are 
quickened into new life. ‘These are the two extremes of 
the range of the human mind. The cultivation of either 
one of these natures in Man, measurably at least, ex- 
cludes the other, and therefore the cultivation of either 
one must bring different results than would be obtained 
from the cultivation of the other. This brings out the 
dual character of Man’s make-up, upon which so much 
depends. St. Paul is the expositor above all others of 
this dual character where he says: “For I know that in 
me dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with 
me; but how to perform that which is good I find not: 
but the will that I would not, that I do. Now if I do 
that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that 
dwelleth in me.” 

The brain may be said to be the receiving-station for 
Man; the connecting link between two great worlds, the 
material and the immaterial; the natural and the spir- 
itual; and it is Man’s business here to cultivate and per- 
fect the moral and spiritual intelligences of his being. 
Education in its broadest sense cannot by any possibility 
be too much cultivated; so of learning in all the different 
branches, and wisdom to apply this knowledge. Contrary 
to general belief, there is a great difference between edu- 
cation and wisdom. A person may be highly educated 
and have very little wisdom; another person may have 
little education and yet have great wisdom. Wisdom is 
a combination of discernment, judgment, and sagacity, 
the result of a happy, natural balance of the faculties, and 
is capable of cultivation and improvement along with the 
faculties. 

Man, very early in his career, began to take cognizance 
of this intelligence, and education resulted from the ac- 
cumulation of learning. What one generation had learned 
they told to the next, or wrote it down for the next gen- 
eration to read for themselves. In this way only has 
knowledge accumulated from the first day to this. 

Man, on this earth, may be likened to a plant, being 


324 WHAT IS MAN? 


nurtured and matured for a purpose. God declares that 
“all flesh is grass”; this is a figurative expression, to show 
that all flesh is perishable. 

Or, if you please, Man is a novice in God’s kindergar- 
ten, for the development of character. We believe that 
needs no explanation, only to say that the word “charac- 
ter” is very comprehensive; it covers the whole field of 
life. It is not what you appear to be, or what you would 
have people to think you are, but it tells what you are. It 
penetrates the most secret recesses of your being, and 
records all your secret emotions. 

Character is as diversified as there are individualities. 
It varies from the most depraved savage, on the one 
hand, who is an entire and perfect abandon, so far as 
moral principles are concerned, to the most educated, re- 
fined, pure and clean Christian gentleman. So that char- 
acter, as an expression of the emotions, motives, aspira- 
tions, practices and will of mankind, might be compared 
to a vast kaleidoscope, in that every time you move it, or 
give it a turn, an entirely new design greets your eye. A 
complex picture at each turn, but founded on different 
principles and designs. Each picture may have some 
beautiful colorings and graceful angles, but in the details 
there is almost sure to be some incompatibilities some- 
where in the picture, simply because perfection is an im- 
possibility in this life. 

I have heard people say they were perfect, completely 
sanctified; they did not and could not sin; but we have 
never known such an one very long until we discovered 
that they denied to any one else, than themselves, the 
privilege of interpreting their actions, to say nothing of 
the motives prompting the actions. They always set up 
their own standard. However, some may have very few 
and slight defects, while others may have no right lines, 
or bright colorings ; an incongruous, motley mass; a con- 
glomeration, composed of incompatibilities, representing 
no design, no beauty, but rather repugnance and disgust. 

Metaphorically, character is a painting that every child 
born into this world is compelled to put on the canvas; 
consequently, we see the picture in all stages of comple- 
tion, varying from the clear, pure white, without even the 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 328 


scratch-mark of the artist upon it, to the most elaborately 
designed and completed picture. Man’s free moral agency 
enables him to choose his own colorings, make his own 
shading, draw his own design. He may make his lines 
heavy or light, straight, curved or crooked, just as he 
likes. He may make use of beautifully curved and sym- 
metrical arches and doorways; beautifully decorated 
rooms and hallways, perfectly proportioned in length, 
width and height; all forming parts of one grand whole, 
representing a beautiful mansion. Or, he may outline a 
great building, with spires reaching heavenward, the 
whole having vast proportions; but abandon it while it is 
only in outline. Close by the side of this vastly outlined 
structure, we are sure to find a hovel; perchance, with all 
the windows broken out, the doors off of the hinges, no 
chimney, but the smoke finding its way out through a 
hole in the roof. But on the inside of the hovel we may 
find some daubings with colors, all clear cut, but no 
blending or harmony. 

Some paint only flowers, representing all grades of per- 
fection, from the mere outline drawings to the most elabo- 
rately complex colorings; but these flowers, if we will 
examine closely, are totally devoid of aroma; they are 
only cold, lifeless imitations. 

Some are fond of battle-scenes, and every line repre- 
sents turmoil. Some paint only fire-scenes, and seem to 
glory in the destructive rage. Others paint only pictures 
of animals, neatly proportioned, fat and sleek, with col- 
oring perfect ; or they may be hideous nondescripts—lean, 
gaunt and tottering. Some perfer to paint scenes of 
misery and wretchedness. Others are idealistic, and paint 
only imaginary scenes of angels and winged seraphs. 
Here, too, we are apt to find, perhaps in the corner of 
the canvas, a very moderate dwelling with many imper- 
fections; perhaps it is a hovel, which represents their 
every-day life. 

Another class paint only golden eagles, and are satis- 
fied with nothing less than great stacks of gold, having 
servants to pile it up for them, while they stand back and 
admire. While others paint strictly phantasmagoria. Thus 


326 WHAT IS MAN? 


we see all manner of paintings, representing the charac- 
ters of men and women. 

But Man has been advised as to the character that is 
most acceptable in this race of life by high authority. 
“That by these ye might be partakers of the divine na- 
ture, having escaped the corruption that is in this world 
through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add 
to your faith, virtue; and to virtue knowledge. And to 
knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and 
to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kind- 
ness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” 

In short, having escaped the corruption that is in this 
world through lust, add those traits or principles that 
beautify, ennoble and embellish character. Do not spoil 
a beautifully outlined picture by adding those traits or 
principles of action which debauch life, distort and de- 
stroy the design. What would be the conditions to-day, 
if ail peoples lived strictly in accord with the Ten Com- 
mandments? Or even the one rule which says: “What- 
soever that ye would that men should do unto you, do 
ye even so unto them’? Can any man answer the ques- 
tion ? 

Undoubtedly God intended that Man should make the 
most of himself—physically, mentally, morally and spir- 
itually. But especially along the lines of noble, moral 
greatness, having a character above reproach; by virtue 
of his own choice. There is no virtue in righteousness, 
if you are compelled to be righteous; being good because 
you have to be; therefore, He left mankind to make the 
choice of the character he is compelled to build, con- 
sciously or unconsciously. 

I have heard people sing the song with gusto, as fol- 
lows: 

“Oh, to be nothing, nothing, 
Only to lie at His feet, 
A broken and emptied vessel, 
For the Master’s use made meet.” 


I have reason to believe there is no place in God's 
economy for such a being. We certainly do not believe 
God wants such a weakling. He is of no use anywhere. 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 327 


We have no intimation that God ever intended Man to be 
a nothing; but there is direct testimony, besides every in- 

timation, that God intended that every Man should be a 
Something. 

We take it that Man’s mind was a perfect blank when 
he appeared on the scene of this world’s activities. Not 
a single word, or a single sound was known to his ear ; 
there was no such influence as heredity, or environment 
to handicap him then, as there is now; his mind was to 
be developed; he had a character to build then, the same 
as now. He was created pure, his canvas was pure 
white. But he was created with a susceptible, dual na- 
ture; with that susceptibility was coupled the power of 
choice, with a free will to back up that choice. The dual 
nature referred to we will designate as the carnal, or 
human nature, on the one hand; and the ethical or spir- 
itual nature, on the other hand. 

It is commonly taught that there is in this world a 
personality, called the Devil; an evil spirit, that works by 
impressions made on the individual through the carnal 
nature, inducing sin in the individual, of every shade and 
description. Then, on the other hand, the ethical or spir- 
itual nature is susceptible only to impressions made by 
the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, inducing in the in- 
dividual only pure and holy aspirations and emotions. 

Now, here we have a perfectly pure personage, such 
as we have supposed Adam to have been, placed here 
under the conditions named, during the developmental 
stage of his existence. 

It is just as rational to suppose that there is an evil 
Spirit in this world, as it is to suppose that there is 
a Holy Spirit in this world. The only difficulty is to 
account for its origin and its presence here. If God 
created the world and all that in it is, then the evil 
Spirit must be included in the list. All right; that is in 
harmony with the fact of Man’s dual character or na- 
ture. Why have a creature with a dual nature, without 
having an accompanying influence; a spirit capable of 
administering to that carnal nature? 

The progenitor of the human race is started on his ca- 
reer with these two influences ready to administer to his 


328 WHAT IS MAN? 


necessities. Which shall gain the ascendency? Adam 
was admonished that, just as surely as he listened to the 
influence of the evil spirit, and acted upon its counsel, he 
would surely die. What happens? No, what transpires? 
Just exactly what God’s omniscience told him would oc- 
cur. Adam deliberately disregarded what had been told 
him. He made his choice, and backed it up by disobey- 
ing the command. He did this to satisfy the carnal 
nature. 

Now, whether or not Man lost his ethical standing by 
a single act of disobedience, in the person of the progeni- 
tor of the race, and thereby entailing the doom of de- 
struction on all posterity, unless pardoned, is one of the 
great questions of the day. If it did, then the infant is 
just as guilty, by inheritance, as the adult. We believe 
that it is not essential, only as it brings out the real con- 
ditions inherent in the race. If the duality of Man’s na- 
ture had not been demonstrated in the life and make-up 
of the progenitor of the race, it certainly would have 
shown up later in the progeny. And then it would have 
been too late to call Man’s attention to the fact. It 
would have been like the sounding of the alarm after the 
escape of the thief. The act of disobedience is in per- 
fect harmony with Man’s dual character, and is the key- 
note to the whole plan; it was no surprise. The one 
overt act of positive disobedience serves to make the fall 
a positive condition; whereas, not to have called Man’s 
attention to the overt act at the time would have left it 
a possible negation, as it requires an awakening of the 
ethical side of Man’s nature in order that the moral na- 
ture be cultivated and developed. This very alleged act 
of disobedience proves conclusively that Man had the ca- 
pacity, yes, more than that, the proclivity to follow the 
promptings of his carnal nature. Any man has only to 
look into a glass to recognize the human side of his na- 
ture; he has only to run over, in his mind, his past life 
to see that the race is prone to carnality in thought, word 
and deed, as the sparks are to fly upward, because the 
carnal nature is ever looking to the present physical con- 
ditions. The carnal nature is the human side of our 
make-up, and, as a free moral agent, Man will follow the 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 329 


dictates of this carnal mind, unless the spiritual nature, 
having been awakened, steps in to control action. What 
is commonly and theologically known as “the Fall of 
Man” is only an illustration of Man’s proneness to fol- 
low the dictates of his carnal mind; it only demonstrates 
his ability and strong proclivity, from the very earliest 
moments of his existence, to follow the dictates of native 
human nature, to act from the impulse of a carnal mo- 
tive—a simple fulfillment of his nature. It is one of the 
results of Man’s dual nature, acting as a free moral 
agent. History and experience confirm this view of Man’s 
make-up, and also show that unless the ethical nature is 
awakened and pushed to the ascendency in Man’s seli- 
government, so that moral self-government becomes the 
ruling passion of the life, the carnal side or native hu- 
manity will act instead ; because it is the ever-present ele- 
ment in Man’s make-up. 

Now the injunction is: “Cease to do evil and learn to 
do well.” Mark that word “learn.” Moral self-govern- 
ment is a study; it requires effort, schooling, learning and 
practice to enforce it. It is then an acquired accomplish- 
ment; it is a new structure implanted on the old founda- 
tion, and constitutes a new birth; the subject is restored 
to his original standing before the fall. 

The carnal nature is at enmity, at variance with the 
higher, moral nature; it is not subject to the law, neither 
can it be. And so, if what we deem the object of this 
developmental period is to be obtained, the new birth is 
necessary in order to change the dominating influence of 
the life from the carnal to the ethical and spiritual. Now, 
right here comes a great question, viz.: Can Man do this 
alone? This question has been discussed, pro and con., 
throughout the ages. The consensus of Christianity is 
that he cannot, because he is spiritually dead, and it re- 
quires a vivifying force from without to awaken a new 
spiritual life. But, when this new spiritual life is awak-’ 
ened, the promptings for action and self-government will 
flow from the moral and spiritual, instead of the carnal 
nature ; and the object of this probationary state will have 
been attained. 

Man was constituted, at his creation, just as he is now 


330 , WHAT. IS MAN? 


constituted. Growth may result from following either 
side of his nature, the carnal or the ethical, but not along 
the same lines; and this constitutes the true evolution of 
the subject. From Man’s experience and learning pos- 
sibly his being is intensified and enlarged; but, after all, 
the enlargement and intensification of humanity, from 
the more than four thousand years of experience, the 
same human nature, the same natural Man exists to-day 
as in the beginning. 

If the foregoing presumption is approximately correct, 
it follows that Man’s mind was uninfluenced by any pre- 
viously existing sin, wrong, or wickedness on this earth ; 
his canvas was pure white; not a single outline mark 
upon it. Then, whatever of sin, wretchedness and wrong 
there is now in this world among men is the result of 
Man’s own choice—the free exercise of his endowment 
with the quality of a free moral agency. It makes no dif- 
ference whether he is simply led on and stimulated by the 
appetites and emotions of carnal humanity, without con- 
sulting even a modicum of wisdom in the matter, or 
whether the carnal Man is administered to and influenced 
by an evil spirit. 

Right here again is a great controversy. Some say: 
How could Man, in such a condition as we have supposed 
him to be, know what was right and ethical, or wrong, 
knowing nothing about either course, having had no ex- 
perience whatever? 

We freely admit that is a hard question to answer, to 
the satisfaction of all. There is but one way out of the 
dilemma, besides the usual theory of the warning given, 
that we know of. We have referred to it before in these 
pages. There is, in Man’s consciousness, a monitor that 
tells him what is right and what is wrong—we call it 
conscience. The impulse of conscience is instantaneous. 
In the normal mind it responds at once, as it were, point- 
ing out the way. But if Man will not follow the prompt- 
ings of this impulse; if he ignores it, and does the deed 
regardless of the promptings not to do it, then the moni- 
tor is of no use. It has failed in its purpose, not because 
it did not act, but by reason of its action being ignored. 
The promptings of carnality say, do this; the monitor 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 331 


says, no, do not do it; but the carnal desires and emo- 
tions, being ever present, are so urgent that the deed is 
done, in spite of conscience. To our mind this is the sim- 
ple solution of the question, “How did sin and evil come 
into this world?” 

We think this is so because “the carnal mind is at en- 
mity against God.” It is the opposite pole in humanity ; 
the material desires, sensual, lustful, are natural to the 
body, as opposed to the ethical and spiritual. Carnalism 
deals entirely with the body, and therefore entirely with 
the present moment. Morality and spirituality deal not 
only with the present, but also the future; but they deal 
through the soul, or the spiritual ego, which is the true 
Man. The subjection of the carnal nature to the approval 
of the spiritual nature is the goal to be reached by Man 
here in this life. 

We have heard men say: “How do you know what is 
right or what is wrong? They are purely relative ques- 
tions: What I might think right, you might consider 
wrong.” ‘That brings out the necessity of having a stand- 
ard by which to compare. But, if that position is un- 
equivocally true, then there is no such thing as con- 
science, in the sense that it is a monitor to every human 
being alike; therefore, we say it is a hard question to 
answer. This much I know, however, that there is a 
something within the domain of my consciousness that 
gives me a lively reprimand at times in my secret mo- 
ments; and I have every reason to believe that I am not 
different from common humanity. 

From the foregoing it appears that Man was placed 
here for a decided purpose—a purpose that has to do 
not only with the present, but with the future of every 
individual. Does anybody believe, or even think that 
it was only for the purpose of subduing the earth and 
raising corn, or reaping wheat, or piling up one dollar 
upon another dollar? A creature made in the image of 
the Creator, having no other purpose in life than plow- 
ing corn, selling foods, or, worse than all, immeasurably 
worse, cheating and swindling his fellow-man out of the 
proceeds of his toil, is unthinkable. These are only in- 
cidentals in this life; work is a necessary incidental in 


332 WHAT IS MAN? 


this life, and we wish to make the distinction, viz., that 
all honest toil, all work is in accord with the wise pro- 
vision of the Creator who decreed that: “In the sweat of 
thy brow shalt thou eat bread.” 

It certainly would be uncomplimentary to the Creator’s 
intelligence to say that He created Man without a pur- 
pose, or a design; or for the simple purpose of having 
him subdue the earth, and plow corn for a lifetime. Not 
so. The purpose is declared to be that, eventually, Man 
should become a joint heir with His Son, Jesus Christ, 
to all the glory of the Father, in His Kingdom; and 
dwell, in the greater life, with his Creator. Thus giving 
Man a permanent home, dependent upon certain contin- 
gencies, viz., the fulfillment of the law. 

In order to make this clear, and perfect His revelation 
of Himself to Man, God sent His Son to earth to an- 
nounce in person the plan; and to teach Man by word of 
mouth, as well as by example, what an acceptable char- 
acter would be, and how to build it. On going away He 
said: “I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and 
prepare a place for you I will come again and receive 
you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be 
also.” ‘That seems to make it plain that Man has been 
notified of the design of the Creator. Then He says, He 
is not willing that any one should perish, but that all 
should meet the requirements and live. To make it more 
congenial, and to deal justly and without coercion, He 
gave to Man the capacity to make a choice—a free will 
to do in the matter as he chooses. But, at the same time, 
notifying him that his objective will depend on the con- 
tingency of his choice. Thus the alternatives are placed 
before all. “Which will ye choose?” 

Now, if Christ be not risen from the dead, well may 
we say, with St. Paul: “Then is our hope vain.” We 
turn to Ecclesiastes, who well expresses our condition 
when he says: “‘For that which befalleth the sons of men 
befalleth the beasts; even one thing befalleth them: As 
the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one 
breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above the 
beast; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are of 
the dust, and all turn to dust again.” 


WHEN MAN WAS CREATED 333 


That surely is a different aspect of the case. It changes 
the whole scene from that of an intelligible one to that 
of an unintelligible one. It robs Man of any object in 
life. Nevertheless, a great many people believe this to 
be the true state of affairs, simply because they do not 
believe in the promises as being the Word of God; or 
that Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind. 

The major pivotal point then, in Man’s destiny, is the 
genuineness of Christ’s identity as the Son of God and 
the Redeemer of the world. The minor pivotal point is 
Man’s attitude toward Jesus Christ as his Savior, pro- 
viding He is the genuine Christ. If Jesus Christ is the 
genuine Son of God, as He purports to be, and as He 
said He was, then the result rests with Man; accord- 
ingly as he accepts or rejects Him. There can be no 
question as to the fulfillment of the promises to the letter, 
if Jesus is the real Christ; neither can there be any doubt 
as to His resurrection from the dead. 

On the other hand, if Jesus was only a Man, as Renan 
says He was, an eccentric, egotistical idealist, who 
sought a quarrel with the Jews at Jerusalem; and sought 
death for glory, and to perpetuate His name, or words 
to that effect; then, of course, He was a fraud, and all 
His pretensions to be the Son of God and the Savior of 
mankind are falsehoods—pure deceptions by Him, and, 
as a result, we are at sea. If such be the case, verily our 
hopes are vain; and we know not what Man was created 
for. Truly, then, “Jesus is the Light of the world.” And 
on the proposition that Jesus is the genuine Savior of 
mankind, and the promises relative thereto, we confidently 
rest our solution of Man’s presence here, as well as his 
probable objective. Otherwise, both are unsolved enigmas. 

This is an age of doubt and unbelief in the ethics of 
Christianity, in high places, right in the places where we 
would look for the contrary. Among other inconsisten- 
cies, think of a Man occupying the chair of theology in 
one of our colleges who is a skeptic, an unbeliever in 
the ethics he is supposed to teach as being the greatest 
of truths. We believe this condition is largely due to the 
acceptance of the doctrine of Darwinism, or “The Evolu- 
tion of the Species,” the doctrine that teaches that God 


334 WHAT IS MAN? | 


did not create Man, but that Man descended from a 
monkey, and is therefore an animal. 

Unbelief in the divinity, and the rejection of Christ as 
the Savior of mankind, is consistent with this heretical 
doctrine, Darwinian evolution, just as he meant it to be; 
and this heretical doctrine is inconsistent with the Divin- 
ity of Christ. We are totally unable to harmonize the 
two doctrines. But we believe the truth will eventually 
prevail. Man may speculate and persist in his unbelief, 
may disown his Master; but that will not alter the final 
outcome, will not change the result in the least, only so 
far as their own personality is concerned. 

A somewhat encouraging phase of the question is that 
all the advanced civilizations of the world to-day agree 
that true Christian ethics are ideal, even for this life. 
Even the most skeptical, the infidel, commends righteous- 
ness and a high moral character; and prefers to live in a 
Christian community, with churches and schools. 

We are convinced that, included in the special purpose 
of God toward Man, as set forth, is the bestowal now of 
His love and His bounty on Man, having given Man the 
capacity to enjoy and reciprocate that love, if Man, by 
the exercise of his own free will, choose that way. 


THE END 





yy! 
( 


, ive sf 
roy 
. F 


eee 
Sle, Pe es 


Y 
4 
i 
in 


= 


Sah, 

oat] 

Cay uh 
Oi 
Aris 


ad 
wy 








ie cnt ARs 
Ke) cS ote-te; 


ce eel Pr, 


ae ety <tr 


Sere we 


fesesyr lar ag at 
lat anes fat ne 
bs 
a 


ad a ae 
4 





“we 


ES Peet ew Lat 
> “¥ oe 


fim & 
= te Sen on 








